Marco Panza talk (contd.)

0:00 Now, he's saying that he only has a certain conception of what the greatest constraint is, when one of the obvious questions is that, if that's right, he'd be the Crispin Wright of that term. He'd be the Crispin Wright of that term. That the interpretive question, what do we mean by the interpretive term? So we need to reinterpret the... I think you said at one point that there were a few occurrences. They're pretty hard to make occur. One can say that there is this constraint of the greatest constraint. Now, in the case that I understood Christian right, when we ask how many people are there in this room, and I say 12, that's a determinative question. So one can give an actual, the application, one can use an actual number in an actual theoretical case. But if I say how tall am I, I can't just say how tall am I, I can't just say 5.84. So that at one point, that's one point which is in the right sense, that when you give a look at the great world map it's always relative to some unit which you have to take, so it's not just an immediate, so that's one point. The other one was the one you made, the empirical you were discussing, you can't empirically determine exactly what the world map is. So neither of those look like they're going to give us a straightforward, it looks like that's it, that's just your view of the application. All of these terms are used to say that actually we need to do justice to the application of real numbers in mathematics. Now that I think is an important point that some of you are going to see from me, because that doesn't matter to mathematics at all. When we're talking about the application of real numbers, one can see what's meant by the proper application of cantilever numbers, but we can't make sense of all the numbers. But that would mean, I think, that when Frege says that the real numbers are measured numbers, one wants to interpret that in such an important sense to do justice to your idea about them being real numbers.

2:30 In order to understand the application of mathematical practice, we have to understand the word application as application of mathematical practice, and not application. There's something peculiar about the natural numbers, when you think about anything. Because the natural numbers are the only numbers... What I'm trying to do is formulate a kind of, like, there is something special about the natural numbers, which is, I'm going to take a step sideways. I actually think that counting should be part of the definition of the natural numbers and measuring should be part of the definition of real numbers. I don't see it as an application in this sense, but I do think it should be part of the definition. So you want to say that quantum physics is not an application. It is already part of the definition. So, I think that in a sense, it is exactly the point of radio constraint. The idea of radio constraint for natural levels. But I think that for natural levels the problem is not really important. It is not really relevant because it is quite clear about radio. The natural number of training I would like to say is that we have social concepts, the social concepts are there. It's completely crazy to me that there are social concepts there, so understand me to say that I agree with you, but it is training, so let's keep it for granted for the sake of the other, social concepts are there. Then we count, in a sense, in an independent and autonomous way, the things that we do.

5:00 So the possible is described below with the final number, so it is not misreported. But is your point or Craig's point? They put it in the context of your presentation. To maintain the exact application of this code, we need to make a map.

7:30 But why not? ...consider, say, counting and measurement on equal footing. I mean, again, we have counting as something, say, practice, not that we articulate this counting by the notion of natural number, and we do similarly with real number. I also give you an example. Because I can't... But next time it will be better even if we write this very strange thing with a blackboard. You know, we take more, say, operational look, right? But look, I think that probably it's just wrong idea to... To make some strong ontological commitment, like objects or something, you could rather look more operationally, say there is such thing as counting, there is such thing as measurement. It's kind of not very clear what is going on. To make it clear we need some mathematical development. You know there are people who say there is this kind of illusion that there is this unique concept of natural number. Probably there are a few concepts which could be right. So, in that sense, I really don't think there is an absolutely sharp difference, except that counting is, say, more probably widespread practice, more universal in a sense than measurement, which could be done differently.

10:00 On the part of mathematics, I am very interested in mathematical objects without being forced by the definition of an object and its positions, so I will call them. I know that I will call them, but it's a question. Conventional or conventional?

12:30 I'm going to clear the screen. Conventional? Conventional. I think it's... A sketch. A sketch of a page. No, no, it's not that. It's full screen, isn't it? Well, it's not full screen. We can't adjust the zoom in my phone. It's not full screen. The number is not a question.

15:00 The number is not a question. The number is not a question. The number is not a question. The number is not a question. The number is not a question. The number is not a question. The number is not a question. The number is not a question. The number is not a question. Ah, yes, we can still adjust. You have to get out of the microphone. No, no, but I have to get out of the microphone. No, you can't get out of the microphone. I don't understand. You have to make a page, right? By the arrow, scroll down. I don't know math, so I'm going to look for a word. By math. The arrow at the bottom. You have to get out of the microphone. It's at the bottom, look. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. I'm not bad at this. It's not the first time I've heard of a collation. If a platonist's platonism is ensured, it ensures objectivity.

17:30 These tests are very important.

20:00 On the contrary, the points preceding the moment when we say that there is nothing, that we will not ignore, say that precisely there are negative solutions, so that we must accept them as they are. I declare that there is nothing that I do not agree with. Over there, synthetically, the characteristics of the theory of quantum mechanics, a type of result.

25:00 And then, as explained. If these forces are determined by a strictly logical rule, such knowledge could be, quickly, an elliptic, a short-term change that does not have the same meaning.

30:00 This is the opposite of what we are doing.

32:30 This is the opposite of what we are doing. This is the opposite of what we are doing. All of this, in turn, prevents us from defining functions in a different way than by the rest of the evaluation process. And, therefore, in order to have a calculator, we have the action of an extension of a program. The whole, image after image, continues to be applied to these functions. In this sense, we are returning to our problem. It is time to base the sense on the representation. The reason why the sense of 2 plus 4 equals 2 times 3 times 1 is that The evolution of the science of one and the expression of the other in relation to the modernization of the standard is examined in a distinct way.

35:00 The one of Neapolitan, which is supposed to be with this word, and it is in this sense that we have...

37:30 In fact, when he says here, classically, etc., I think we should be prepared in history, because, indeed, what... In fact, even this distinction between sense and zinebidoids can be said perhaps a little more strongly than you, let's say, it was a little replaced in Karna for example by syntax and semantics, that is to say, and in Quine there is all this article called Quine from Intention, that is to say, but in these periods there, the genre is indeed always referred to as a traditional, classical point of view. That's it, something like that. Intention or meaning, that's the basis of logic, and people tried, and strangely, they also spoke against it, like you, essentialism. They are, you see, linked to essentialism with Zinn from Frege, with intention. And now we can reverse this whole story. It's just a historical remark that if we talk here about classics, etc., we have to talk about the period of the beginning of the 20th century, but not even the beginning of the 19th century. Yes, that's right. It's a real story. What they claim to do now is to do the opposite, to base denotation on meaning, and to base denotation on meaning is to do the re-founding of semantics, launched around the 1960s, or semantic.

40:00 I quote the majority now, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 51, 52, 53, 58, 59, 51, 52, 53, 59, 51, 52, 53, 59, 51, 52, 53, 59, 51, 52, 53, 59, 51, 52, 53, 59, 51, 52, 53, 59, 51, 52, 53, 59, 51, 52, 53, 59, 51, 52

42:30 The order of preeminence between sense and emulation, which has all sorts of practical consequences that Frege does not have. But if we compare Frege with Rassel, of course we can say that in Frege there is much more this intentional side of sense, that is, it is closer to Gerard, if you will. Because in definition of numbers, it is Rassel who dropped all these things. History, concepts, etc. can be viewed as pure extensions. That is, everything is relative. On the other hand, in these programs, at least if you speak in a term like that, it's the factory, the sense that takes it. Of course, we can say that even from the perspective of the beginning of the 20th century, it's a completely traditional point of view. It's not at all something... That is, in the 20th century, there is all this development of... In addition to extensives and so on, there is now, let's say, Gerard's regression, and so on, but...

45:00 There are three things that I could tell you, and it is from this that we can understand if, first of all, we produce this laboratory, is it very reliable? And why? If I give you the expression... It is this representation of the structure of dynamic mathematics that actually implies demonstrations. Because in contemporary research, in mathematics, we can see the complexity of the evidence, that people come from everywhere, and paths that are created. It's a bit this idea that we see as a global graph of the demonstration.

47:30 Yes, but can we apply it again? I don't think it's been done yet. We can apply the deposition of the graph of the screen analysis, but I don't know if we could win. What Gérard and Joannet do is that they give a lot of meaning to the theoretical concepts they have in mind to give what you write, which is very relevant. The operations that go from one inequality to another are really very distinct and involve serious demonstrations. If you please, I'll just take an example here. We can compare these two equalities. We see that the first operation is simply a thing that places us on the antennas. The second operation is a question of long steps that are supposed to be extracted from the roots. This means that the fact that it is the same object is not given in theory but is used as such. It is only possible because I pass. All of these are related to the actualization of the concept of this and that. How can we find ways to solve these mathematical problems? I have found a second-hand connection domain with what is important, which are return systems and return possibilities. In my opinion, this is a very important point. Can I consider these inequalities?

50:00 The theory of subsoil, the subsoil which is the one of instability, is considered to be anti-impermanent because of this inversion.

52:30 In the lower part, some objects of the star, H2 and H3, are isolated and H2 is an amaryllis of the colloquium. Consequently, in the idealization and the elaboration of the stages of particular objects, there is the characteristic of a category of cases that contains a class of objects, an object of cases, a class of arrows, arrows of cases, and possibly physicists.

55:00 In other words, the relationships between the points of application of the arrows, which is a minimal formula, in any arrow of the case, there is a domain of the arrow, a co-domain of the co-domain of the co-domain of the co-domain of the co-domain of the co-domain of the co-domain of the co-domain of the There are no more than operations to replace objects by actions or operations, a dynamic, it is the dynamic that is essential.

57:30 Just on this point, of course we do not need objects to interpret something special, we can always replace objects with morphisms of entities, Morphisms are objects. From this point of view, an explanation of morphisms as operations is something that is not essential. I don't know, it's intuition, it's interpretation, that's it, and there are actually a lot of theory that you can live with, we can conduct ourselves in this framework, that is to say, these things that do not enter so easily, it's not... So the question is... Yes, yes, but then the question is, do we have to do it or do we have to do something else? So the question now is to know if what centers the absolute momentum of this direction works. Yes, yes. So in this framework, if you are... B. How can we understand, for example, that objectivity is only thought of by the unicity of the world? So I have a question. What is left? It is a question that, if we define it, we will obtain it by a certain meaning.

1:00:00 When Girard and his work go back in this direction, is the distinction between the concept and the object still relevant in the concept of Hegel? All of these terms are used in the same way.