From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny Tue Apr  7 23:22:15 EDT 1992
Article 4716 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny
>From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: mean,meaner,MEANING-est/ intention-and-self t
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.095148.10244@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 25 Mar 92 14:51:46 GMT
References: <1992Mar13.052208.23117@massey.ac.nz> <1992Mar17.100228.3488@norton.com> <1992Mar25.013222.28031@unixg.ubc.ca>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 55
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu

In article <1992Mar25.013222.28031@unixg.ubc.ca> 
ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes: 

>In article <1992Mar17.100228.3488@norton.com> 
>brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder) writes:
>[Quoting someone else:]

X:
>|> [...]  In   sci.math for
>|> example, I recently noticed the thread about our school-time propostion that
>|> x.999999..... =  x+1.  However  much the  steps  used  in the  argument  are
>|> justified, the conclusion still appears to  confound us - something that the
>|> mind just  has to  "get used to"  as  John  Von Neumann  is supposed to have
>|> advised Albert Einstein.

KR:
>Actually, some of us are not confounded by this at all.

No shit, Sherlock.

BY:
>|One of the problems with this kind of argument is that it neglects to
>|remember the relationship between mathematics and reality. Just
>|because you can construct a mathematical concept like 2.99999... or
>|infinity doesn't mean that there is any real referent for the concept.
>|Concepts of method like infinity or 2.99999... are certainly useful
>|for certain computations, they can't be said to have any direct
>|referents, like "6" or "chair" do.

KR:
>"2.9999..." has a referent in the same sense as "6" does. Why should
>anyone suppose otherwise?

Evidently, one doesn't suppose, but concludes from even more ludicrous
propositions. 

Careful, Keith: you are about to challenge the canons of Objectivism.

>--
>                       "It is true enough that the bells' language needs
>Keith Ramsay            interpreting for the North American public...."
>ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca          -Rev. Godden, quoted in "The Clapper".


`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`


