You don't seem to know anything about Wittgenstein anyway from your posts. Wittgenstein's whole philosophy is about mathematics and grammar. He was also a student of Russell too, and both were deeply into mathematics and logic.(2) Wittgenstein doesn't speak for mathematics anyway. Whatever Wittgenstein wrote, it wouldn't change that fact that mathematics does not define 'infinite' as 'finite', which would be utterly ridiculous, as mathematics defines 'infinite' as 'not finite'. — TonesInDeepFreeze
It was just to let you know it was what Wittgenstein was saying, and he was a great philosopher of language, logic and mathematics.So what? It doesn't say that mathematics takes 'infinite' to mean 'finite'. And even if it did (which it does not), it doesn't represent mathematics or mathematicians, since they very certainly do NOT take 'infinite' to mean 'finite'. — TonesInDeepFreeze
You misunderstood. It meant that Wittgenstein said that mathematician's infinite means finite in his writings. — Corvus
Please do some searches and reading on Wittgenstein's infinity.It's clear that the subject of "mathematician's discussions of the infinite are clearly finite discussions" is mathematician's discussions of the infinite, and not the infinite. Bolding, to display the distinction.
— Banno
Set your understanding out, or retract. — Banno
I thought when I said that you would know whom I was referring to.You said that mathematics regards 'infinite' to mean 'not finite'. You didn't say anything about Wittgenstein there. If by saying that mathematics takes 'infinite' to mean 'not finite' you actually mean something different, such as that Wittgenstein notes that mathematical discussions are finite, then you need to write that and not that mathematics takes 'infinite' to mean 'not finite' and not to then blame readers for your error.
Moreover, I don't opine what Wittgenstein meant in that quote of him, but at least, at face value, saying that discussions are finite is not the same as saying that mathematicians mean 'finite' when they write 'infinite'. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I asked for the textbook definition for infinite in math. — Corvus
It was Frege, Russell, Quine who had reservations on it even if didn't oppose to it. — Corvus
"Let us not forget: mathematician's discussions of the infinite are clearly finite discussions. By which I mean, they come to an end." - Philosophical grammar, p483. Wittgenstein.
— Corvus
Wasn't he saying clearly mathematician's infinite are finite? — Corvus
So which discussion is not finite in that case? — Corvus
It was me who addressed at the very first, which was ignored.It was Frege, Russell, Quine who had reservations on it even if didn't oppose to it.
— Corvus
I addressed that. You SKIPPED it. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I don't. I have been just responding to your posts making my points.If you have something to say specific about those mathematicians/philsophers, then please say what it is. — TonesInDeepFreeze
It is not just mathematician's discussions which end. All discussions end. That is too obvious.
What Wittgenstein must have meant was the concept of infinity in mathematics. — Corvus
No time for that. You just call anyone trolling if you haven't understood something?What? Are you trolling? — TonesInDeepFreeze
He seemed to be saying discussions are finite, and all discussions end. What he seems to be saying was that it has nothing to do with mathematics infinity. I didn't agree with that. I will read him again. Are you speaking for him too?Banno didn't say that discussions are not finite. He is saying that "discussions are finite" doesn't mean that "mathematics takes 'infinite' to mean finite'. — TonesInDeepFreeze
To me, it was clear that Wittgenstein meant infinite in mathematics means finite, hence mathematician's discussions will end. - He denies the concept of infinity in mathematics.That might be the case. That might be part of Wittgenstein's argument against the notion of infinity. I don't know. But even if it is, it still is not saying, at least at face value, that mathematics regards 'infinite' to mean 'finite'. — TonesInDeepFreeze
You don't seem to know anything about Wittgenstein anyway from your posts. — Corvus
He was also a student of Russell too, and both were deeply into mathematics and logic. — Corvus
you just keep on writing disinformation in your posts without even checking it — Corvus
it was clear that W. had rejected the concept of infinity — Corvus
Infinite in mathematics means "finite". Hence their discussion will end. — Corvus
Your claim was out of point from the start, because you see the discussion in the quote as discussion in talking. It is the concept of infinity in Mathematics he was meaning, which doesn't exist, hence not speakable and is meaningless. If you are still hanging on that "discussion" and make song and dance about it, you are not in the game.↪Corvus I have.
I’ve addressed your post and comments directly.
↪Corvus More misrepresentation. Pathetic. — Banno
You sounded as if Wittgenstein was irrelevant in math. That sounded not intelligent or read in philosophy.I haven't made any claims about him, other than that, at least at face value, "discussions are finite" does not mean that mathematics regards 'infinite' as meaning 'finite'.
He was also a student of Russell too, and both were deeply into mathematics and logic.
— Corvus
So what? — TonesInDeepFreeze
You keep misunderstanding which was the part of the main problem here. It was said by Wittgenstein, and I just used his sayings to support my own point.Infinite in mathematics means "finite". Hence their discussion will end.
— Corvus
You are claiming again that in mathematics 'infinite' means 'finite'. Amazing. — TonesInDeepFreeze
You better ask Wittgenstein what he meant by that. I have my own point. What with you?it was clear that W. had rejected the concept of infinity
— Corvus
That doesn't entail that in mathematics 'infinite' means 'finite'. What in all creation is wrong with you? — TonesInDeepFreeze
So what? It doesn't say that mathematics takes 'infinite' to mean 'finite'. And even if it did (which it does not), it doesn't represent mathematics or mathematicians, since they very certainly do NOT take 'infinite' to mean 'finite'.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
It was just to let you know it was what Wittgenstein was saying, and he was a great philosopher of language, logic and mathematics. — Corvus
You don't seem to even know who said what, and what was whose points, and just get into ad hominem all the time. Would you say your postings are high standard? Read them yourself. They are full of disrespects to the others. You don't even know what Wittgenstein was up to. If you thought he had little to do with math, then it tells you where you are in the discussions.And that's all just recent posting by you, not mentioning all the other garbage you've posted in this thread and at least another. — TonesInDeepFreeze
it was clear that W. had rejected the concept of infinity
— Corvus
That doesn't entail that in mathematics 'infinite' means 'finite'. What in all creation is wrong with you?
— TonesInDeepFreeze
You better ask Wittgenstein what he meant by that. I have my own point. What with you? — Corvus
Your claim was out of point from the start, because you see the discussion in the quote as discussion in talking. It is the concept of infinity in Mathematics he was meaning, which doesn't exist, hence not speakable and is meaningless. If you are still hanging on that "discussion" and make song and dance about it, you are not in the game. — Corvus
"Incorrigible" would be more accurate.You are amazing! — TonesInDeepFreeze
You don't seem to even know what said what, and what was whose points — Corvus
and just get into ad hominem all the time. — Corvus
Would you say your postings are high standard? — Corvus
You don't even know what Wittgenstein was up to. — Corvus
If you thought he had little to do with math — Corvus
"Incorrigible" would be more accurate. — Banno
You [Banno] haven't even explained what "infinity" means. — Corvus
How can one admit error when he is not in error but the other party is? — Corvus
We’re not saying that the symbol “A” is identical to the symbol “B”. This is where I think you are misunderstanding. — Michael
In the context of maths, when we say that A = B we are saying that the value of A is equal to the value of B. The value of A is equal to the value of B if and only if A and B have the same value. — Michael
A non-identical but equal value makes no sense. — Michael
By a 'mathematical antirealist' I meant someone who thinks maths is invented, not discovered. Or someone who thinks that your "objects" in set theory only exist in our minds, or as pebbles or ink or pixels, etc. — GrahamJ
Pure nonsense from the pair. You two have been degrading the whole discussions into a comedy."Incorrigible" would be more accurate.
— Banno
Amazing in the forms of incorrigibility. — TonesInDeepFreeze
You speak for Banno, and now trying to speak for me?Even if the other party were in error (which is not the case here anyway), if you are also in error, then you could admit it.
Actually, it seems you can't.
You compound your errors now by claiming that you've not been in error, when its overwhelmingly clear that you have been, and in so many ways. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.