Re: A summary of my position so far.
- From: Herbert Newman <nomail@invalid>
- Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 05:48:03 +0100
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:22:02 -0800 (PST) Mitch Harris wrote:
I'd call it appropriate. Enough is enough!
- whatever JJ is doing, your response was, well, was sorta bizarre in
its own way.
On the other hand, David C. Ullrich actually DID present an "excellent
summary" of things JJ stated: equally incomprehensible. :-)
Finally, I'd like to indicate that digits and symbols, as numbers,
are not necessarily odd or even, finite or infinite, discrete or
non-discrete, ordered or not ordered. Whether such descriptions are of
properties which arise as a consequence of digits being expressed in
particular applications (such as a sequence or calculus), or whether
these are not properties but instead refer to stand-alone ontological
elements I have not entirely determined. But logically it looks like the
latter. For, regarding the former, we note that there is no substantive
description of an element that is distinguishable from its properties;
which would seem to rule this option out.
Herb
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A summary of my position so far.
- From: John Jones
- Re: A summary of my position so far.
- References:
- A summary of my position so far.
- From: John Jones
- Re: A summary of my position so far.
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: A summary of my position so far.
- From: Mitch Harris
- Re: A summary of my position so far.
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: A summary of my position so far.
- From: Mitch Harris
- Re: A summary of my position so far.
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: A summary of my position so far.
- From: Mitch Harris
- A summary of my position so far.
- Prev by Date: Re: A summary of my position so far.
- Next by Date: Re: Extrapolating linear ratios
- Previous by thread: Re: A summary of my position so far.
- Next by thread: Re: A summary of my position so far.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|