From owner-qed Mon Nov 14 23:34:33 1994
Received: from localhost (listserv@localhost) by antares.mcs.anl.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) id XAA07033 for qed-out; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 23:31:26 -0600
Received: from campion.demon.co.uk (campion.demon.co.uk [158.152.55.183]) by antares.mcs.anl.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) with SMTP id XAA07027 for <qed@MCS.ANL.GOV>; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 23:31:15 -0600
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 05:04:36 GMT
From: rbj@campion.demon.co.uk (Roger Bishop Jones)
Reply-To: rbj@campion.demon.co.uk
Message-Id: <926@campion.demon.co.uk>
To: holmes@catseye.idbsu.edu
Cc: qed@mcs.anl.gov
Subject: Re:  Thin-skinned Platonists
X-Mailer: PCElm 1.10
Lines: 17
Sender: owner-qed@mcs.anl.gov
Precedence: bulk

In message <199411141609.KAA28483@antares.mcs.anl.gov> Randall Holmes writes:
> In response to Lyle Burkhead,
 
...

> When I show (by contradiction) that "the largest prime number" does
> not exist, I am not at any point talking about an object called "the
> largest prime number" in a way which cannot be explained logically

...

I'm puzzled why anyone should find it necessary to defend this kind of proof
by contradiction.  Surely even the most extreme intuitionists accept proof
of negative existentials in this way?

Roger Jones             http://www.to.icl.fi/ICLE/rbjpub/rbj.htm (on a fair day)
rbj@campion.demon.co.uk (at home)