> Please count the asterix:
>
> *
>
> In order to ensure that I have not counted it twice, I remove the
> asterix, thus:
>
> Now I can compare the blank space with the asterix and say that the
> difference is 'one'. But how can I be sure I have not counted the
> blank space twice? Must I invent another mark to tack on to the blank
> space?
>
> We can conclude that numbers are indeterminate. We also cannot be sure
> that the mathmatical symbol '1' (an audacity in itself) is properly
> counted. It follows that the surety of mathematics is a grace it picks
> up from human benevolence and need.

> We can conclude that numbers are indeterminate. We also cannot be sure
> that the mathmatical symbol '1' (an audacity in itself) is properly
> counted.

> Please count the asterix:
>
> *
>
> In order to ensure that I have not counted it twice, I remove the
> asterix, thus:
>
>
>
> Now I can compare the blank space with the asterix and say that the
> difference is 'one'. But how can I be sure I have not counted the
> blank space twice? Must I invent another mark to tack on to the blank
> space?
>
> We can conclude that numbers are indeterminate. We also cannot be sure
> that the mathmatical symbol '1' (an audacity in itself) is properly
> counted. It follows that the surety of mathematics is a grace it picks
> up from human benevolence and need. ...

> On Oct 9, 2:35 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:

>> Please count the asterix:
>>
>> *
>>
>> In order to ensure that I have not counted it twice, I remove the
>> asterix, thus:
>>
>> Now I can compare the blank space with the asterix and say that the
>> difference is 'one'. But how can I be sure I have not counted the
>> blank space twice? Must I invent another mark to tack on to the blank
>> space?
>>
>> We can conclude that numbers are indeterminate. We also cannot be sure
>> that the mathmatical symbol '1' (an audacity in itself) is properly
>> counted. It follows that the surety of mathematics is a grace it picks
>> up from human benevolence and need.

> ...

> 1 being assertive/masculine, and 2, passive/feminine.

> Must I invent another mark to tack on to the blank
> space?

> "Immortalist" yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1191966484.166816.69030@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>

>> On Oct 9, 2:35 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:

>>> Please count the asterix:

>

>>> *

>

>>> In order to ensure that I have not counted it twice, I remove the
>>> asterix, thus:

>

>>> Now I can compare the blank space with the asterix and say that the
>>> difference is 'one'. But how can I be sure I have not counted the
>>> blank space twice? Must I invent another mark to tack on to the blank
>>> space?

> ...

> On Oct 9, 2:35 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> Please count the asterix:

>

>> *

>

>> In order to ensure that I have not counted it twice, I remove the
>> asterix, thus:

>

>> Now I can compare the blank space with the asterix and say that the
>> difference is 'one'. But how can I be sure I have not counted the
>> blank space twice? Must I invent another mark to tack on to the blank
>> space?

>

>> We can conclude that numbers are indeterminate. We also cannot be sure ...

>> In other words, mathematics cannot provide any reason why 7 and 5 make
>> 12. There can be no 'mathematical' reason, for is mathematics has its
>> own rationale, it cannot be represented simply because it is internal.
>> Kant is saying that the behaviour of mathematical objects is mimicing
>> physical objects.- Hide quoted text -

>
> Not what Kant was saying, he was just saying that the procedure is not
> a result of analytical nature of the number contained in that
> procedure, abstraction and sythesis are needed. (combnation &
> conception) From the text me pasted;
>
> "All mathematical judgments, without exception, are synthetic... ...We
> might, indeed, at first suppose that the proposition 7 & 5 = 12 is a
> merely analytic proposition, and follows by the principle of
> contradiction from the concept of a sum of 7 and 5. But if we look
> more closely we find that the concept of the sum of 7 and 5 contains
> nothing save the union of the two numbers into one, and in this no
> thought is being taken as to what that single number may be which
> combines both. ...