wedrifid comments on The role of mathematical truths - Less Wrong

14 Post author: SilasBarta 24 April 2010 04:59PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (81)
Tags: reductionism math naturalism verification

Comments (81)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 26 April 2010 05:57:30PM *  0 points [-]

We're committed to the existence of the bound variables (to exist is to be the value of a bound variable) but not of the properties, there doesn't have to be anything like coolness (assuming that was what you were suggesting).

My reading of Silas's essay (and in particular looking at his diagrams) gave me impression that his '2' is closer to what you would describe as a 'property' than the category in which you put 'Silas'.

Comment author: Jack 26 April 2010 06:20:05PM 0 points [-]

I was just starting from the observation that in our mathematical discourse we treat numbers like objects, not properties. "The number between 2 and 4", "there is a prime number greater than one million", "5 is odd" etc. all treat numbers as objects.

Comment author: wedrifid 27 April 2010 12:36:54AM 0 points [-]

I would call those properties that had properties. But I'm a programmer, not a mathematician or philosopher (so don't know which limitations I'm supposed to have placed around my thinking!)

By the way, I think 'cool' is kinda 'lame' but 'awesomeness' is kinda 'cool'. Just sayin'.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit