Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.math
Subject: Re: Ineffable numbers
Message-ID: <5700017@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Nov-85 01:28:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.5700017
Posted: Mon Nov 25 01:28:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Nov-85 08:12:40 EST
References: <667@spar.UUCP>
Lines: 30
Nf-ID: #R:spar:-66700:inmet:5700017:000:1413
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Nov 25 01:28:00 1985


[michael: ellis@spar]
>In other words, the particular set of `effables' is determined by
>the naming convention used. This set of effables can always
>be expanded by incorporating improvements into the naming convention,
>but there always remain ineffables that have not been included.

>Thus, I still believe in Todd Moody's ineffables.

Well, in this formulation so do I, but I don't think it does jus-
tice to his philosophical idea. Remember, his departing point was
Kant's Ding an sich, which exists, but is  unknowable.   Now,  an
admission  of  something  like  that raises this objection: if it
*is* unknowable, how come you know so much about it : namely that
it *exists* and *is unknowable*. Todd suggested a model for that:
a *set* which is *known* and one of the things known about it  is
that  its *elements* are unknowable, in the sense that they can't
be named individually. In the model ineffable corresponds to unk-
nowable, and effable (your neologism) to knowable.

Now your reformulation  (with  multiple  naming  conventions)  is
equivalent to replacing "unknowable" by "currently unknown", with
"naming  convention"   corresponding   to   "current   state   of
knowledge".  But with these there was no philosophical problem to
solve. Of course there always are yet unknown things.

*Knowable* corresponds to "effable under any naming convention"
- and that is paradoxical.

		Jan Wasilewsky