| Revision as of 23:23, 10 January 2006 editKop (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users620 edits Omnipotence paradox← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:28, 10 January 2006 edit undoBrianH123 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users545 edits →The law of the excluded middleNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| There's plenty of published mathematics surrounding what happens to math when you remove the law of the excluded middle from classical logic. Can't say about philosophers, but no doubt they've picked it up and run with it too as the idea's been around a while. Chase the links you removed from ]. --] 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | There's plenty of published mathematics surrounding what happens to math when you remove the law of the excluded middle from classical logic. Can't say about philosophers, but no doubt they've picked it up and run with it too as the idea's been around a while. Chase the links you removed from ]. --] 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::I know what intuitionistic logic is. My point is that you don't have to flood the house in order to get some dirt off the floor. Adopting a totally different logical framework to deal with analyzing this paradox is overkill, and I doubt you can find a published philosopher who has applied intuitionist logic in this way. ] 23:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:28, 10 January 2006
I'm not at the computer right now, but feel free to leave a message after the beep, and I'll get back to you.
Beep
Hi, why did you remove this? I see neither a comment in the talk page nor in the edit summary.--Eloquence* 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I really should have put a message, and I usually do for all my edits. I didn't think it fit in "Other Activities", and it didn't flow. Nor did it really convey much information -- it's just some fluff he said in passing in an email. BrianH123 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- It wasn't an email, it was a public comment in a quite significant thread on Kuro5hin. I was looking for a statement from himself that describes his own philosophy outside objectivist circles, succinctly, and that's the best I could come up with -- he has become more occlusive about it lately. If you can find a better statement, I'd be happy to go with that, but otherwise I'd like to readd it..--Eloquence* 23:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- But what is a "gung ho radical for capitalism"? What does that tell us about him that we don't already know? He's founded three companies at least according to this article, so obviously he's a capitalist and pretty gung-ho about it. Is he against all government regulation of private industry? That would be something substantive to include if you can find substantiation of it. But "gung ho radical for capitalism" is the kind of fluff CEO-types often say which doesn't really mean much. BrianH123 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The law of the excluded middle
There's plenty of published mathematics surrounding what happens to math when you remove the law of the excluded middle from classical logic. Can't say about philosophers, but no doubt they've picked it up and run with it too as the idea's been around a while. Chase the links you removed from Omnipotence paradox. --kop 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- I know what intuitionistic logic is. My point is that you don't have to flood the house in order to get some dirt off the floor. Adopting a totally different logical framework to deal with analyzing this paradox is overkill, and I doubt you can find a published philosopher who has applied intuitionist logic in this way. BrianH123 23:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)