 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/14/2004 7:20 PM (GMT -6) |   | Alan-
If or when you can get around to it, this thread here—
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3346&whichpage=4
—ended some time ago on page 4 with you and I discussing whether or not our Q (indeterminacy operator) was going to mean contingency simpliciter (which you were arguing for and which I argued wouldn’t work) or historically contingent. Doc chimed in back then as well. (I just stumbled back into this thread when JET posted a URL for an article on Hartshorne that I think is really important to what we’re working on.)
Anyhow, I'd be interested in knowing whether you've resolved the question of the sort of indeterminacy Q is to posit and what the outcome was. Don't read the whole thread. Just the first half of fourth page up through Doc's post.
Blessings,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:04 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|