[Wittrs] Re: Syntax and Semantics in Mathematics

  • From: "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:07:33 -0000

--- 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

Sorry, but that is no argument at all.


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

Other related posts: