[Wittrs] Re: [C] Re: Syntax and Semantics in Mathematics

  • From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:56:58 -0400

iro3isdx wrote:
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:

in any case, there are grounds unrelated to the CRA Presumption
for believing that syntax does not constitute and is not sufficient
for semantics.

However, you failed to provide such grounds.

Your argument seems to be:  because formalism allows people to look  at
mathematics as if there were no semantics, therefore there is  no

My argument is that formalism failed.


Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware



Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts: