> Cantor's argument proves that there is no effective enumeration of the
> computable reals.

>

>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> and it's not a
>>>>>>>>>>> computable matter to decide which do and which don't.

>

> In sci.math Virgil comcast.net> wrote:

>> In article <1167514359.268266.249470@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> Han.deBruijn@DTO.TUDelft.NL wrote:

>

>>> stephen@nomail.com schreef:

>>...

> Daniel T. wrote:
>

>> It is pointless to talk to a solipsist, for he cannot, by
>> definition, know what you are saying. It is pointless to talk to a
>> subjectivist because he cannot, by definition, understand you.

>
> All I really care about the solipsist argument is how it clarifies
> the boundaries of measurement.

> "aversiveness" gmail.com> wrote:

>> Daniel T. wrote:

>>> spam@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:

>>>> "aversiveness" gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> Deutch's comments serve only to put solipsism in its place.
>>>>> Central to the argument is the idea that for solipsism to
>>>>> 'work' then the must be 'else' from which information can be
>>>>> recieved by 'self'. That means that the entirety of what 'is'
>>>>> must include more than 'self'. But that doesn't really
>>>>> invalidate the usefulness of the solipsist argument about the
>>>>> boundaries of information. It also doesn't invalidate the
>>>>> solipsist question that keeps one from establishing that there
>>>>> is an objective firmament grounding one's reality.

>>>>
>>>> Based on what you just said, the only knowledge that a solipsist
>>>> can ever have is the knowledge of his own existence. There is no
>>>> mechanism for acquiring any other knowledge because only the
>>>> solipsist exists. IOW, the solipsist cannot know about future ...

> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 02:13:48 GMT, "Mike Painter"
> sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

>>>>> Like claiming that God does not exist.

>

>>>> Atheism is not a claim,

>

>>> Atheists can and do make claims.

>

>>>> The only one making a claim in this case is YOU.

>

>>> So you claim, Septic. Doh! Self-refute much?

>

>> If there was any relation between "Atheism is not a claim," and
>> "Atheists can and do make claims." your statement might be valid.

>
> Atheism is the claim that God does not exist, and atheists make that
> claim.

> Nobody can identify an atom as sensory matter,

> Tonico wrote:

>> a_plutonium wrote:
>> ......................................
>> My argument is this:

>>>
>>> Proof of Infinitude of Regular Primes, Euclid, Indirect Method:
>>> Definition of prime. Suppose Regular Primes are finite. Then
>>> {2,3,5,7,11,.... p_f} are all the primes that exist where p_f is the
>>> last prime. Construct W+1 as 2x3x7x...x p_f +1.
>>> Then, because of definition of prime and supposition W+1 is necessarily
>>> a new prime. W+1 cannot be composite. Contradiction, hence Regular
>>> Primes are infinite.
>>>
>>> Because the Infinitude of Regular Primes forces W+1 to be necessarily a
>>> new prime is the key that allows us to prove infinitude of twin-primes.
>>> This key was missed by all math professors.

>> ************************************************************
>> Again with the same nonsenses? Don't you EVER get tired?!? W+1 can be
>> composite, and thus the contradiction is gotten from the fact that a ...

>> From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith math.missouri.edu>

>>> Suppose P is a proof of the proposition q. Is there a standard name

>>> q as a function of P?

> ..

>>> Is there a standard word for the thing that a more general proof
>>> proves?
>>> (I'm just trying to give a function in a computer program a sensible
>>> name. Things like 'target', 'result, 'goal' or 'end' just don't seem
>>> descriptive enough to me...)

>
> Thats another theory based upon the probable for it is a prediction
> that you would be able to do so cloaked as a fact but merely a belief
> which may or nay not turn true.