Re: Explaining the foundations of math
From: Van Jacques (calccurve-test23_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/31/04
- Next message: The Last Danish Pastry: "Re: Grid puzzle"
- Previous message: shiggy: "Re: imple group of order 168"
- Maybe in reply to: William Elliot: "Re: Explaining the foundations of math"
- Next in thread: William Elliot: "Re: Explaining the foundations of math"
- Reply: William Elliot: "Re: Explaining the foundations of math"
- Reply: Acid Pooh: "Re: Explaining the foundations of math"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 31 Aug 2004 05:38:28 -0700
I have read the responses to this, some more convincing than
others, some contradictory, none totally satisfactory.
For example, does 1) for every x there is a y
mean that x --> y is 1-1 (into) No. Could be the same
y for every x.
But I still say the 2) there is a y for every x says the
same thing, and still could be the same y for every x.
Van
- Next message: The Last Danish Pastry: "Re: Grid puzzle"
- Previous message: shiggy: "Re: imple group of order 168"
- Maybe in reply to: William Elliot: "Re: Explaining the foundations of math"
- Next in thread: William Elliot: "Re: Explaining the foundations of math"
- Reply: William Elliot: "Re: Explaining the foundations of math"
- Reply: Acid Pooh: "Re: Explaining the foundations of math"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|