Re: A summary of my position so far.

David C. Ullrich wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:08:24 +0000, John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

I have indicated in previous posts that sequence or calculus or whether these regarding the former substantive would seem to find themselves and their applications must manifest the number 2 application of an included in the list proportioned as a set, odd/even, etc. In the creation of a set no new like the numbers in another set without also.

Excellent summary, thanks.
David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)


Are we so limited in our vision for the possibilities of number that we cannot find a pigeon hole.., perhaps between the dot and the infinity, for nonsense prose? Even this has a place.
.

Relevant Pages
Loading