History of the Even Prime Counter-Example
October 26th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: History of the Even Prime Counter-Example :: History of the Even Prime Counter-Example** :: Refuting Outright Lies :: History of the Even Prime Counter-Example**
History of the Even Prime Counter-Example
[Joe (new)]: on 2008-10-11 you replied to my post of the same day:
[Joe]: as an aside, Jud, I might mention that, while preparing this
post, I once again reviewed your dissertation … I came upon the
section you’ve added incorporating your misunderstanding of one of my
counter-examples (the even prime number) without so much as a mention of
its source.
[Jud]: You pride yourself too much Joe. My source (Lemmon. E J.
Beginning Logic p 97 or Copi and Cohen. Logic 10th Edition p 431-2) is
clearly referenced when I decided to include an attack on the inadaquacy
of much of logical notation and its irrelevance to philosophy.
[Joe (new)]: the citation that you give as your source is precisely the
citation I posted on 2008-09-13.
[Jud]: My interest in the prime number mularchy originally flowed from
an article I read back in July about a student who found a new method of
generating prime numbers from playing the guitar. This lead me to
another report I read about a scientist has used his computer to find
the largest prime number found so far, which, written out, would stretch
for 25 kilometres. It amused me that the headline said *discovered* as
if the number had been hidden somewhere platonistically waiting to be
discovered. The fact that you mentioned prime numbers was purely
coincidental
[Joe (new)]: my use of the even prime number counter-example dates back
much further than July 2008. see my post of 2007-10-15 to the Heidegger
list entitled Summary of Arguments against the Experiento. you joined
the ensuing thread on 2007-10-17.
[Joe (new)]: the issue then and now concerns the mode of instantiation
that an object of thought has. ‘there exists an even prime number’
demonstrates that there is a use of ‘exists’ that does not mean ‘exists
as matergy’. thus, your linguistic frame of reference is inadequate to
encompass a psycho-philosophical inquiry into what there is and the
*way* that a particular existent is — what traditionally is called its
mode of existence.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
