3 ms·
I produced David Hume's arguments, which, I think, are a pretty good starting point. If you're not willing to familiarize yourself with them, that's a shame, be
by dvt 11y ago
I produced David Hume's arguments, which, I think, are a pretty good starting point. If you're not willing to familiarize yourself with them, that's a shame, because he's a pretty smart guy.
- moron4hire 11y agoNobody is going to read a book to reply to a forum comment. You should be articulate enough to explain what you mean without pointing, "there, that, that's what I mean."
- dvt 11y agoI hope you realize how absurd you're being. If you asked me to explain what it means for a set to be "Henkin" I'd probably tell you to go read a logic book because it's way too hard for me to explain (and ensure you understand) the intricacies of a completeness proof -- a proof much simpler than Godel's, for that matter. Similarly, the study of aesthetics is very rich and difficult. It's impossible to distill 2 or 3 bullet points from Hume's paper, much how it's impossible to distill 2 or 3 bullet points from this one: http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/historical-projects/Projects/completeness.pdf http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/historical-projects/Projects/complete... -- even I know and thoroughly understand both topics.