i was thinking about what i understand of the curry howard correspondence. sorta like in the sense that when we prove something with proof p using the infinite, there exists a proof p ' which does not use it and yet comes to the same conclusion. so this would seem to also apply to certain axioms of infinity (harmless) yet not others, but the important thing it would seem is to situate the axioms (infinity or something else) in the concessions we make to ensure concrete things. the extent of these concessions i guess would be defined by the ch correspondence.
(i decided to put this back up, because i realize i do this a lot, i dont want to take ownership of my thoughts/mind, but what are we without our mind? even if we are wrong, maybe it is better to express your ideas, something i often don't do . . . like i comment on concrete things, but i seldom express what goes on in my head . . . maybe i need to change that, cause its pretty insecure . . . and a lot goes on in my head. :P)
Last edited by Pinker85; 09-07-2012 at 07:05 PM.
Reason: rush of courage. :)
"My comrades and my beloved, upon your way you shall meet men with hoofs; give them your wings. And men with horns; give them wreaths of laurel. And men with claws; give them petals for fingers. And men with forked tongues; give them honey words." --Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet
"I trust what you are doing though…I just see it a little differently.
I don’t see it as you stepping away from the fire. I see it as the fire directing your course.
No matter how airy or earthy or watery you become... to many of us you will always be...a super nova."
"Behind these gates of seeming warmth sits, loosely chained, a fierce attack dog. Perhaps not crazy, but dangerous"