TonesInDeepFreeze

Your claim that I seem overly rationalistic, obviously.

Ah, argument by "it's obvious".

Where did Godel say it?

No, I didn't. That's idiotic. Logicism is the view that mathematics can be derived from logical axioms alone. I've never even flirted with logicism.

If I understand you correctly, sure, one can feel that one is being religious. I am not disputing that he is accurately describing the way he feels or...

Just to be clear, that ad hominem doesn't refute anything I've said. Second, I have all kinds of facets, not just reason, but in discussing mathematic...

That is one of the worst encapsulations of Godel I've ever read. Another botched attempt.

We can list the essential attributes of religion, and see which of those are attributes of mathematics. Attenuated, glib, "kinda sorta" analogies like...

Mathematicians do sometimes say cheeky things like that. But mathematics doesn't have religious practices, rites, rituals, creeds, obligations of obed...

Darn, I was hoping to hear about a work in mathematics that is from a dead universe perspective and moves in infinite circles. And now I'm also hoping...

And at every juncture I pointed out where you are wrong or confused. x is a set iff (x is the empty class or (x is a non-empty class and there is a y ...

Would you give an example of a work in mathematics that is from a dead universe perspective and moves in infinite circles?

No, it's not.

I find no definite sense from your use of all that undefined terminology and assumptions. And I surmise that continuing to ask you will lead to only m...

Logicism is often thought to have failed because it was not found how to derive mathematics without non-logical axioms. That does not refute what I sa...

I know what ordinals and density are. I just want to know what you mean by 'infinite density' in mathematics. And I know that the philosophy of mathem...

So anything anyone says about numbers in general is mathematics? And if your philosophizing about that mathematics is purely philosophical then that m...

The natural numbers? They're not a doubling sequence. They're a successorship sequence. And what theory of the natural numbers? There are many.

What do refer to when you say 'mathematics'?

Sure, in a purely philosophical context, you can come up with all kinds of stuff.

Mathematics is rigorous by effectivized formal languages, recursive axiom sets, and recursive inference rules, and explicit statements of algorithms f...

The mathematics of ordering and ordinals may be applied to study of space and time, but the mathematics itself doesn't mention space and time. I agree...

For all x, y, z, if x=y and y=z, then x=z. It's famous that monadic languages lack the expressiveness of dyadic languages, and that monadic logic is w...

It's fair for you to have quoted me that way, since I did post it. But, just for the record, around the same time, I edited my post to not include tha...

You were told wrong.

Let's go back the general question about ExP. I'm not couching this as "The task for proving ExP when ExP is true is different from the task for provi...

I'll do one of Earl Hines's "Blues In Thirds".

For physical world matters. However, in the mathematics itself, ordinals don't refer to space and time. Agree. Yes. I just told you that I don't use t...

Let's look at Turing machine framework (I think I have this right): Suppose P is a computable property of natural numbers. (Analogously, for purpose o...

Let me rephrase. They are the same task. But if ExP is true, then the task is sure to end, while if ~ExP is true, then its end is indeterminate. This ...

They cannot both be true.

These principles have been offered, where the scope is not determined: AxP is falsifiable but not verifiable ExP is verifiable but not falsifiable I t...

When I say 'P is implied', then P is a statement, not an object. So I don't say 'War And Peace' is implied. But I do say That 'War And Peace' is on th...

Yes, I was not qualifying your remark regarding the implication of the counterfactual. Of course, the gambler's fallacy cannot be mathematically true....

Whatever criticisms I have of your math ideas, I don't disparage your ability to quote from children's books.

I'm aware that with double negation we can turn any positive into a negation. But that doesn't bear on the point I made:

I'm not faulting the article. I'm pointing out that the article says explicitly the exact opposite of how you described it.

We can only prove what is true. So it is always easier to prove what is true, since there is no proof of a falsehood. That applies whether it's ExP or...

My point has been that your arguments are specious. That doesn't not require "taking a stand" on anything other than what I have said.

(1) You evaded that that is a counterexample to your claim that P must be asserted before ~P is asserted. Instead you just intoned again your non sequ...

It might seem awkward for the subject of that debate to be couched in the negative, but it is not logically necessary that it be couched in the positi...

It's crystal clear that your method is to just keep insisting you're right without addressing the arguments.

Just to be clear, the reason casinos profit is the percentage payouts. People believing the gambler's fallacy helps the casino only to the extent that...

I myself have said over and over and over that you can't form ~P without first forming P. But, and I've said this over and over and over, that does no...

~P cannot be understood without first understanding P. But that does not entail that P must first be proved. Your "Ergo" is a non sequitur.

(1) We don't know that P was asserted before ~P. I assert the following statement: It is not the case that there exists a rainbow colored kangaroo doi...

What page is that? The page I found says we can prove a negative.

(1) I don't think so, not necessarily. There could be better, more relevant factors used (2) It is not even an operational analogy for the matter at h...

I didn't say 'declare P' in the sense of 'declare P to be true'. I mean 'state P' in the sense of writing it or saying it. Not necessarily to state th...

Different reasons: To assert it. To mention that someone else asserted it. To wonder about it. To mention it as a topic for discussion. To mention it ...