Re: [math-fun] math, existence, and God
One doesn't need Category Theory in all its mind-bending glory in order to talk about projective limits. I think that all one needs for a projective-limit definition of God is a bunch of axioms that say that for any two beings there's a still greater being who subsumes them. By the way, when p-adic numbers were introduced, did anyone wonder whether they "really existed"? Jim Propp
On 7/14/09, James Propp <jpropp@cs.uml.edu> wrote:
One doesn't need Category Theory in all its mind-bending glory in order to talk about projective limits. I think that all one needs for a projective-limit definition of God is a bunch of axioms that say that for any two beings there's a still greater being who subsumes them.
You've just kicked into touch my motivation to (yet again fail to) master category theory --- you can't do this to me!
By the way, when p-adic numbers were introduced, did anyone wonder whether they "really existed"?
I don't suppose Kronecker would have approved ... WFL
This paper fills a much needed (Dedekind) gap in the literature. We study the set of Dedekind cuts of a linearly ordered Abelian group as a structure over the language ... --rwg
On 7/14/09, rwg@sdf.lonestar.org <rwg@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
This paper fills a much needed (Dedekind) gap in the literature.
I couldn't fail to disagree less --- surely the gap is recursively unfillable! WFL
We study the set of Dedekind cuts of a linearly ordered Abelian group as a structure over the language ...
On 7/14/09, rwg@sdf.lonestar.org <rwg@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
This paper fills a much needed (Dedekind) gap in the literature.
I couldn't fail to disagree less --- surely the gap is recursively unfillable! WFL
We study the set of Dedekind cuts of a linearly ordered Abelian group as a structure over the language ...
The significance of your irreverence cannot be underestimated.
To bring two threads together, on p 50 of this irresistible troll one finds the phrase: "Does it exists" which surely is not rhetorical, since both verbs agree with the subject. On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 5:30 AM, <rwg@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
This paper fills a much needed (Dedekind) gap in the literature. We study the set of Dedekind cuts of a linearly ordered Abelian group as a structure over the language ... --rwg
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 8:54 PM, James Propp<jpropp@cs.uml.edu> wrote:
One doesn't need Category Theory in all its mind-bending glory in order to talk about projective limits. I think that all one needs for a projective-limit definition of God is a bunch of axioms that say that for any two beings there's a still greater being who subsumes them.
Huh. That's actually something Joseph Smith wrote down in 1835, as part of "The Book of Abraham": 19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/3/19#19 "Intelligence" is presumably a reference to part of an 1833 revelation: 26 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/93/36#36 -- Mike Stay - metaweta@gmail.com http://math.ucr.edu/~mike http://reperiendi.wordpress.com
participants (5)
-
Fred lunnon -
James Buddenhagen -
James Propp -
Mike Stay -
rwg＠sdf.lonestar.org