càdlàg

[càdlàg @cdlg12]

@EditorParry @dandrezner Where can I read about that? I googled but no luck.

[càdlàg @cdlg12]

@atlanta_amyish @KevinMKruse @dandrezner Obviously I don't know you or the exact level of your deference and respect for doctors and lawyers, but I have a feeling you would be well advised to trust them a little less than you do right now.

[càdlàg @cdlg12]

@matthewmatix @KevinMKruse @dandrezner what, and back down from an insane woke take that was immediately falsified?

[càdlàg @cdlg12]

@RinekeV @JDHamkins just what i was looking for. thank you

[càdlàg @cdlg12]

@JDHamkins I wish I had time to think more about these things. Maybe I should've been a logician. Anyway, thanks for the fun puzzles and please don't feel obliged to respond to these ramblings.

[càdlàg @cdlg12]

@JDHamkins But I guess my point is that in that puzzle, the proof (so far as I am recalling it correctly) exploits something recursive in the nature of the problem. Could there be a similar problem whose solution really does *require* reasoning directly about (knowledge-about-)^n?

[càdlàg @cdlg12]

@JDHamkins where there seems to be a basic cognitive barrier.

[càdlàg @cdlg12]

@JDHamkins But it made me wonder if some people have a facility for knowledge-about-knowledge, or if it can be cultivated. Or rather if it is more like our inability to parse iteratively imbedded phrases like "dogs dogs dogs dogs bite bite bite bite,"

[càdlàg @cdlg12]

@mikeandallie god math dinners are horrific

[càdlàg @cdlg12]

@_todeti_ @JDHamkins ZFC⊢⊥

[càdlàg @cdlg12]

@foolishly @CliffordSosis

[càdlàg @cdlg12]

@d_schrittesser @GundersenMarius @JDHamkins because he got a travel grant