TonesInDeepFreeze

Define 'reach', 'freezing' and 'letting catch up'. Better yet, tell me your primitives and your sequence of definitions from the primitives.

I'd rather say 'theory' than 'model'. But then we must ask what we mean by a theory being true or false. In a rigorous sense, a theory is true or fals...

We'd have to look at the arguments of people who have said that there is. Who do you have in mind? Naturally, we would look at realists such as Godel....

1. I don't know what you mean by ""make sense" of". 2. Frege's system was taken to be a derivation of mathematics from logic alone. Russell's paradox ...

The best introduction to the subject I have found is in the introduction to Church's 'Introduction To Mathematical Logic', as indeed that whole introd...

The crank will mangle what I wrote, misrepresent it, presume to knock down strawmen of it. Likely, I won't have to time to compose a response, especia...

It's also fine to have a philosophical stance that there are no abstract objects. But being true to that stance then requires eschewing even everyday ...

It is fine to say that mathematics should be done intensionally. But cranks go wrong when they claim of the classical mathematics they're criticizing ...

That quote could be written only by someone who does not understand what is meant by 'extensional' and 'intensional'. A name is not just one of extens...

That reminds me, I still am interested in how he thinks Putnam's indispensability view jibes with his own views.

Yep.

Each of these is true if and only if each of the others is true: S = T S equals T S is identical with T S is T the denotation of 'S' = the denotation ...

Just to be clear: I enjoy reading classical mathematics; I find great wisdom in mathematical logic; I admire the rigor of logic and mathematics; I adm...

Values are not "inherently intensional". One may reject ideation and communication premised in abstract objects. But the notion of identity is not eve...

I searched 'Wittgenstein mathematics infinite means finite'. Of course, there are hits with all those terms, but the one I saw come up with a preview ...

You lied about me when you said I started with insults. I gave you the links that prove that you're lying about that. And even showed that you first m...

I understand metaphor. I didn't demand perfection in what you said. You said that mathematics regards 'infinite' to mean 'finite'. That's not a metaph...

That's a beam calling the mote a beam.

I read the chapter about the history of set theory and philosophy about it. I haven't posted anything to dispute of it nor, in certain parts, anything...

There is no 'Godel's paradox'. Anyway, as best I understand your question, the answer is 'no'.

You can hold in your hands and read every volume of the 'Journal of Symbolic Logic' in its original printing, as at the start of the rows of them is V...

A poster who starts out in a thread by declaring "end of story" does not bode well. I am getting a good laugh though at that poster challenging me to ...

And Chat GPT. It is bewildering why challenged me to show a book that defines 'infinite' as 'not finite' when you could have looked yourself at the bo...

Hilary Putnam? How do your views square with indispensability?

I don't know what that would be, but I disfavor censoring cranks or admins using "chilling effects". On the other hand, it is indeed disheartening whe...

I'm glad I don't do that.

No one counts infinitely. To say "counting infinitely and stopping", in this context, is a contradiction. The theory of infinite sets is not premised ...

Even if we agreed that there are no infinite sets, it still wouldn't be the case that 'infinite' means 'finite'. And even if we agreed that the use of...

Whose word games? The point is that you claimed that mathematics takes 'infinite' to mean 'finite', and you support that by claiming that Wittgenstein...

Asking a second time, what quote in the article do you claim supports your claim that Wittgenstein said that mathematics takes 'infinite' to mean 'fin...

The ridiculousness is courtesy of you. Maybe not comedy, but still risible is the claim that set theory takes 'infinite' to mean 'finite'.

Here, very early in this thread, you imparted an insult snidely couched as a rhetorical question: Here is my first post in response to you: There is n...

I'm referring to a notion in which there are only finite "approximations". That is, that the real number is taken to be the algorithm for generating s...

You are blatantly lying about me. Again. Stop lying about me. Moreover, I addressed the issue of ad hominem in detail. Of course, you SKIP that. First...

A library is a candy store, temple, sanctuary, and sparkling pool under a waterfall, all in one.

Another common crank fallacy is claiming that mathematics is false by way or arguing that mathematics uses words in ways different from their ordinary...

By the way, the distinction between the countability of the naturals and the uncountability of the reals doesn't, in a certain important sense, even r...

Regarding the fact that mathematics is not even isomorphic to a system of physical objects: It's not intended to be, and it's not required for the eff...

If one rejects the view that abstract objects exist (and obviously, as abstractions, they don't exist physically), then, of course, the left term and ...

You may try for, literally, years and he will not understand.

I thought you meant an intermediate step in the proof. I have no comment on your characterization of phases. The problem is not misnamed. I explained ...

I gave the Mark Twain / Samuel Clemens example as an illustration, not an argument, of the distinction between sense and denotation. And I mentioned t...

A = B A is B. The value named by 'A' is the value named by 'B'. A is equal to B. The value named by 'A' is equal to the value named by 'B'. A is ident...

You argue by mere assertion. Anyway, you said this in not worth your time and signed off with "All the best", yet you're still going at it.

Whatever that might mean in your own mind. As long as I can be Laurel. Stan Laurel is a great hero of mine. Right up there with Buster Keaton.

You've not shown that I've distorted any fact. Meanwhile, you've been distorting all over the place, as I have shown.

First you say I speak for Banno, then you say that Banno controls me. But if Banno controls me, and I speak for him, then I speak for him at his contr...

You're lying again. I committed no action that constitutes speaking for Banno.

I haven't presumed to speak for Banno. You're lying again.

I explicitly said I do not speak for Banno. You say that in mathematics 'infinite' means 'finite', but 'infinite' means 'not finite'. Then I say that ...