From Newsgroup: sci.logic
On 09/28/2026 11:28 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 05/24/2015 12:12 PM, Virgil wrote:
In article <6525ed42-247a-4437-8646-680b5b187b3e@googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
On Sunday, 24 May 2015 02:37:41 UTC+2, Virgil wrote:
It should be! Whyever would anyone automatically assume that things >>>>>> which appear to be different are not different without having some a >>>>>> priori reasons to do so?
And things that appear to be identical should be treated as identical, >>>>> for
instance {1, 2, 3, ...} and {1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, ...}. And even in 1,
1, 2,
1,
2, 3, ...
I do not regard '{1, 2, 3, ...}' and '{1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, ...}' any more >>>> identical than 'bet' and 'beet', or 'lop' and 'loop'.
But set theory says they are identical like 1 + 3 and 2 + 2.
Set theory does not say that "1 + 3" and "2 + 2"
are any more identical than "bet" and "beet", or "lop" and "loop".
Only dimwits like WM ever fail to distinguish one from the other.
I see.
WM dos not see.
While different names can name the same object, they remain different as
names. "1+3" and "2+2" name the same number, but they remain different
as names.
Accounts of the intensional and extensional and identity, equality, and tautology, do make for that those are operands and operators besides
terms, and belong to arithmetic.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2