Re: Thin-skinned Platonists

Roger Bishop Jones (
Tue, 15 Nov 1994 05:04:36 GMT

In message <> 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 (on a fair day) (at home)