*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 semantics. Sorry, but that is no argument at all. Regards, Neil ========================================= Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

**Follow-Ups**:**[Wittrs] Re: [C] Re: Syntax and Semantics in Mathematics***From:*Joseph Polanik

**References**:**[Wittrs] Syntax and Semantics in Mathematics***From:*Joseph Polanik

- » [Wittrs] Syntax and Semantics in Mathematics- Joseph Polanik
- » [Wittrs] Re: Syntax and Semantics in Mathematics - iro3isdx
- » [Wittrs] Re: Syntax and Semantics in Mathematics- SWM
- » [Wittrs] Syntax and Semantics in Mathematics- Joseph Polanik
- » [Wittrs] Re: Syntax and Semantics in Mathematics- iro3isdx