[Star] Penrose is wrong
Psyche 2:66-82 (1996)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links | This entry has no external links. Add one. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesFrederic B. Fitch (1949). The Problem of the Morning Star and the Evening Star. Philosophy of Science 16 (2):137-141.
T. S. Blyth & J. Fang (2011). On Endomorphisms of Ockham Algebras with Pseudocomplementation. Studia Logica 98 (1-2):237-250.
Lionel S. Penrose & Roger Penrose (1958). Impossible Objects: A Special Type of Visual Illusion. British Journal of Psychology 49:31-33.
David J. Chalmers (1996). Minds, Machines, and Mathematics. Psyche 2:11-20.
Roger Penrose (1992). Comments on 'Penrose and Mathematical Ability'. Analysis 52 (2):87 - 88.
Burkhard Stautz (1997). Ein Astrolab Aus Dem Jahr 1420. NTM International Journal of History and Ethics of Natural Sciences, Technology and Medicine 5 (1):142-159.
Per Lindström (2001). Penrose's New Argument. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (3):241-250.
William S. Robinson (1992). Penrose and Mathematical Ability. Analysis 52 (2):80-88.
Per Lindstrom (2006). Remarks on Penrose's New Argument. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (3):231-237.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads0Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
