Re: Platonism
From: AngleWyrm (no_spam_anglewyrm_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/30/04
- Next message: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Platonism"
- Previous message: Bill Modlin: "Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation"
- Maybe in reply to: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Platonism"
- Next in thread: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Platonism"
- Reply: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Platonism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:35:41 GMT
"Neil W Rickert" <rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> wrote in message
news:co8a92$cbs$1@usenet.cso.niu.edu...
>
> Often, mathematicians demonstrate existence by construction. Of course,
> that is the mathematical sense of "construction".
>
> For the ordinary sense of "exists", I will note that something
> exists after it has been constructed, and only until it has been
> destroyed. But when mathematicians construct an object, they conclude
> that it exists for all time. In particular, it existed before this
> particular construction, and it cannot be destroyed.
>
> This should illustrate why the mathematical sense of existence is
> different from the ordinary sense.
So existance, as used in a mathematical sense, does not consider time to be
part of it's universe. Thus we have 'discovered' the notion of zero, rather
than given birth to the conceptual tool.
Some ideas do go out of favor, or are supplanted by more effective
formulations. The world used to be flat, and now it is not; that FlatEarth
concept had a beginning and an end on the timeline, although both ends are
probably rather blurred across the population.
Can this be said of mathematical concepts as well?
- Next message: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Platonism"
- Previous message: Bill Modlin: "Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation"
- Maybe in reply to: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Platonism"
- Next in thread: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Platonism"
- Reply: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Platonism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|