Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Lester Zick on 1 Sep 2006 14:32 On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:12:21 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <pvfef2du45tb18i8tpuagh4gujc81flqrd(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:20:55 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >In article <1157024892.614341.149030(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, >> > schoenfeld.one(a)gmail.com wrote: >> > > >> >> Definitions can be false too (i.e. "Let x be an even odd"). >> > >> >That definition is not false, as it does not say that any such thing >> >exists. Nor is it true. It is merely impossible to fulfill. >> >> Arbiter dicta are often difficult to fulfill but we do the best we can >> anyway. > > Definitions, not being enforceable, are not 'arbiter dicta'. So you haven't tried to enforce your definition of definitions on me? ~v~~
From: Virgil on 1 Sep 2006 14:33 In article <09tgf2phsbt4dc3315sn9lf12o72s67lud(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:51:13 -0400, "Jesse F. Hughes" > <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > > >Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> writes: > > > >> So is Virgil right or wrong that definitions in modern math can be > >> neither true nor false? > > > >Of course they cannot be true or false. Definitions are stipulations; > >that is, they specify how a term will be understood hereafter. > > So axioms don't stipulate how a term will be understood in the > hereafter? Why should axioms have to redo what definitions already do? > > >Clearly, definitions are not truth-bearing statements. > > And clearly stipulations as to how a term will be understood are not > truth bearing statements either. I think he's finally got it!
From: Lester Zick on 1 Sep 2006 14:33 On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:12:06 GMT, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Winter(a)cwi.nl> wrote: >In article <1157052981.177594.80970(a)p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL writes: >... > > Is that so? Lately, I found that if you have ten apples and five > > people, then you can give everybody two apples. I checked > > this with the axioms of arithmetic and found that 10 / 5 = 2. > >Interesting. What are the axioms of arithmetic? You mean what are the undemonstrable assumptions of truth in arithmetic? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Sep 2006 14:35 On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 11:53:20 -0400, "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> writes: > >> Jesse F. Hughes wrote: >> >>> I thought you "checked this with the axioms of arithmetic". How >>> could you do that if you have no idea what the axioms are? >> >> Oh, come on, Jesse! I checked this with arithmetic. Arithmetic is based >> upon axioms. So I checked it with the axioms of arithmetic. No ? > >No. So now conclusions of arithmetic are not even not demonstrably inconsistent with the axioms of arithmetic? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Sep 2006 14:36
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:52:14 GMT, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Winter(a)cwi.nl> wrote: >In article <e9d42$44f7dda1$82a1e228$28200(a)news1.tudelft.nl> Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> writes: > > Dik T. Winter wrote: > > > > > In article <1157052981.177594.80970(a)p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> > > > Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL writes: > > > ... > > > > Is that so? Lately, I found that if you have ten apples and five > > > > people, then you can give everybody two apples. I checked > > > > this with the axioms of arithmetic and found that 10 / 5 = 2. > > > > > > Interesting. What are the axioms of arithmetic? > > > > Have no idea. But I'm sure that 10 / 5 = 2 can be derived from them. > >And you said you had checked it with the axioms of arithmetic? So >you were talking nonsense when you wrote that? Not unless the conclusions of arithmetic are demonstrably inconsistent with its axioms. ~v~~ |