[FOM] a very exciting claim

Eray Ozkural examachine at gmail.com
Wed Mar 22 08:36:13 EST 2006

On 3/21/06, Gabriel Stolzenberg <gstolzen at math.bu.edu> wrote:
>    But a classical mathematical can't stop there.  He feels a need
> to say that |x| is defined for all x.  On the other hand, in a
> constructive mindset, one does not feel such a need.  Nothing is
> missing.

Excuse my ignorance. Is this also why in many definitions, the
properties relating to an object of type X, P1, P2, .., PN are given, and there
is an additional property that says "No other object is X"? I am
just trying to understand, because (naively) if I give an
algorithm that enumerates all X, there is no need to make the claim
of negating the rest. Can you please expand on these claims a little


Eray Ozkural (exa), PhD candidate.  Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo  Malfunct: http://www.malfunct.com
ai-philosophy: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ai-philosophy
Pardus: www.uludag.org.tr   KDE Project: http://www.kde.org

More information about the FOM mailing list