Re: Fraud Number 1: MARSHALL

From: Cimode <>
Date: 17 Jun 2006 23:45:36 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Distinguishing literals (I'd prefer used *mathematical etymolology* or *mathematical* symbology instead) from the value they represent is a good thought.

But there's a major problem when somebody puts in doubt the equation between the two to make a point.

For instance, if one's put question:

IS symbol '3' universally recognized a value 3 (since antique times) may be FALSE, one's is necessarily redefining ALL mathematics up implied by that recognition until now. (at least the one I know of not unicorns and whatever)...

That kind of question/point may be entertaining in mental masturbation perspective but just can't be taken seriously (except it comes from some Math Nobel Price or Math Nobe price contender)...

I personally call that ignorance of mathematics (you know; the one we all agree on). Don't you think?

Sorry but Math is not domain in which one can put all you want...

Do you get it?

Tony D wrote:
> I took this as Marshall heading towards the difference between a
> concrete literal and the abstract value denoted by the literal. For
> example, "3", "three", "III", "drei" and "trois" are all literals that
> denote the value 3. Can you say what the problem with this idea is and
> provide a pointer to a more correct interpretation ?
Received on Sun Jun 18 2006 - 08:45:36 CEST

Original text of this message