Prev: Can Rosser 1936 be Extended? Alan Turing vs. Martin Davis et. al.
Next: What are Sets?
From: herbzet on 2 Jun 2010 00:08


George Greene wrote:
> (Daryl McCullough) wrote:

> > I don't remember the exact terminology, but there are several
> > different ways that a set can be associated with a formula:
>
> Exactly, and kudos to you for saying it THAT way, as OPPOSED to saying
> "ways that a set can represent a formula".
>
> For precisely the reasons you are about to assert "represent" is just
> too
> complicated/ambiguous a verb to be involved in a discussion with
> anybody
> as low-level as Herc.

Actually, the OP was Charlie-Boo -- a much, much higher level.

--
hz
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 4 Jun 2010 11:40
stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:

> I don't remember the exact terminology, but there are several
> different ways that a set can be associated with a formula:

Sure, but Charlie has previously explained what he means by
"representable".

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi)

"Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 4 Jun 2010 11:43
George Greene <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> writes:

> This is THE ONLY way that matters for anybody at Herc's level, and
> precisely as you chose, the CORRECT way to say this is that the
> formula DEFINES the set, NOT that it represents it.

That's the usual usage, yes. But Daryl was responding to a reply to
Charlie, not Herc.

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi)

"Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: George Greene on 5 Jun 2010 00:04
On Jun 4, 11:40 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote:

> Sure, but Charlie has previously explained what he means by
> "representable".

Is Charlie EVEN REMOTELY QUALIFIED to be presenting such
an explanation?!?!? Did anybody choose to give said explanation
any respect?!?!? Mistakes were made!!!
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 8 Jun 2010 21:21
George Greene <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> writes:

> On Jun 4, 11:40�am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote:
>
>> Sure, but Charlie has previously explained what he means by
>> "representable".
>
> Is Charlie EVEN REMOTELY QUALIFIED to be presenting such an
> explanation?!?!?

Surely he's eminently qualified to explain what he personally means by
whatever technical terms he introduces into the discussion.

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi)

"Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Can Rosser 1936 be Extended? Alan Turing vs. Martin Davis et. al.
Next: What are Sets?