--- 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 semantics.
My argument is that formalism failed. -- Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ http://what-am-i.net @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ ========================================== Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/