tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post1110042828880689993..comments2018-05-13T20:21:36.692+01:00Comments on Poetry as Socio-proctology: Pragmatism vs pragmaticswindwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-35204751698391585502017-04-21T11:36:04.021+01:002017-04-21T11:36:04.021+01:00Thank you for your comment. I'm sorry, I shoul...Thank you for your comment. I'm sorry, I should have responded sooner. As you say, Levi has a technical bone to pick with Sen. Factorisation of weak preference into a strong preference plus an indifference relation is not unique under his type of'joint deliberation' because admissibility varies. <br />However, this would be true of any deliberative process for which admissibility is an input. I like the notion that the latter's domain might grow exponentially faster than the former can handle! How would it work?windwheelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-31878882830294642602017-04-05T16:47:21.465+01:002017-04-05T16:47:21.465+01:00I think Levi was making a point of a technical kin...I think Levi was making a point of a technical kind in the Tony/George decision problem. More generally, consider the Paris Harrington theorem. We may know something is true without being able to prove it. In particular computable functions which grow very fast and thus cant be proven in Peano Arithmetic to be everywhere defined.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com