, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 > at 3:59:34 PM UTC-8, Richard Damon wrote: >> [...] > > Actually > it's by Russell's logic that

, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On Saturday, December 9, 2023 > at 5:23:02 PM UTC-8, Jim Burns wrote: >> On 12/8/2023 12:29 AM, olcott wrote: >>> Epistemological antinomies

, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 > at 11:55:01 AM UTC-7, Jim Burns wrote: >> ℕ⁺ = < 1 2 3 ... > >> has all and only the finite /= 0 >> none

, Ross Finlayson wrote: > and these days I know from a book on > cable engineering of bridge-spans that > the usual way of solving for it > is empirical instead of from first

, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On Thursday, March 16, 2023 > at 9:43:03 PM UTC-7, Jim Burns wrote: >> On 3/16/2023 9:14 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> Here's some

A. Finlayson wrote: > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 3:44:13 PM UTC-7, > Gus Gassmann wrote: >> On Wednesday, 10 August 2022 at 18:01:17 UTC-3, >> WM wrote: >

A. Finlayson wrote: > On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 10:45:55 AM UTC-7, > Dan Christensen wrote: >> As a result of this finding, I will again withdraw >> this axiom of

A. Finlayson wrote: > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 10:41:35 AM UTC-7, > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >> So, well-order the reals, and, >> define time in set theory. >

A. Finlayson wrote: >> >>>>> Domains where identity is a continuous function? > Since my original question was" what's a continuous > interval

A. Finlayson wrote: >> On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 6:14:22 PM UTC-8, >> Jeffrey Rubard wrote: >>> On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 12:58:37 PM UTC-8, >>

A. Finlayson wrote: > On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 9:59:27 AM UTC-8, > Jim Burns wrote: >> On 1/16/2022 12:52 PM, Jim Burns wrote: >>> On 1/15/2022 5:52 PM, WM

A. Finlayson wrote: > On Monday, August 24, 2020 at 5:21:48 PM UTC-7, > Jim Burns wrote: >> I think that the worldview you implicitly express here holds that >> anything

A. Finlayson wrote: > On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 4:53:34 PM UTC-7, > Jim Burns wrote: >> On 4/25/2020 12:51 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >>> Every counting

A. Finlayson wrote: > On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 12:54:09 PM UTC-8, > Jim Burns wrote: [...] >> Suppose that this serves as a description of _all_ the >> "

A. Finlayson wrote: >>>> Then, why bother and not just leave an axiom of empty set? >>> >>> Though redundant axioms are logically harmless they are

A. Finlayson wrote: > Consider two ways to look at V = L, > that each is constructible and all is constructed. > > This is neatly enough a quantifier disambiguation, >

A. Finlayson wrote: > About arithmetic, writing "oo - 0, oo - 1, ..." > results in the same numbers as "0, 1, ...". > > The order is reversed, but it would

A. Finlayson never writes anything coherent. >> So he can't point to any mistake in your reasoning because >> he is just a word salad generator. > > I did not notice

A. Finlayson wrote: >> Axiomless natural deduction? >> This is deriving the inductive principle from >> deductive inference. >> Mathematical platonism

A. Finlayson wrote: >>>> On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 12:56:46 PM UTC-7, >>>> Khong Dong wrote: >>>>> On Friday, 17 August 2018 13:47:

A. Finlayson wrote: > Counting sheep with pebbles in a bag is fine, > but, never launched a rocket to the moon. Surely, launching a rocket to the moon takes more than one step. There

A. Finlayson wrote: > Yeah, but everyone has omega as omega's bound. \omega takes on two different roles in this sentence, -- something that _has_ a bound, such as a domain --

A. Finlayson wrote: > On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 10:53:30 AM UTC-7, > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 7:37:08 AM UTC-7, >> Jim Burns wrote:

A. Finlayson wrote: > Ah, but ran(EF) is not the complete ordered field, > establishing extent, density, completeness, and > measure on its own and for itself. > > This