Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Virgil on 1 Sep 2006 19:06 In article <eh0hf29bmf3ggmteptu3ofe6mkpq8rsp4e(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 09:49:03 +0300, Aatu Koskensilta > <aatu.koskensilta(a)xortec.fi> wrote: > > >Lester Zick wrote: > >> On 31 Aug 2006 10:54:03 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> schoenfeld.one(a)gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Definitions can be false too (i.e. "Let x be an even odd"). > >>> That's not a definition. That's just a rendering of an open formula > >>> whose existential closure is not a member of such theories as PA. > >> > >> Which really clears things up for us, Moe. > > > >MoeBlee's answer might be considered somewhat more obfuscated than > >necessary. We can rephrase it without reference to all this formal stuff > >and simply say that "let x be an even odd" is not a definition, it's > >just a shorter version "let x be a natural number and further assume > >that x is both even and odd" which is neither a proposition nor a > >definition. It's probably the beginning of a - relatively boring! - > >proof in which it is established that there is no natural that is both > >even and odd. > > > >Definitions in mathematics often appear in the following forms > > > > "An X such that P will be called a Q" > > "By a X we mean a Y" > > "When P(X,Y) we often say that X glurbles Y" > > ... > > > >One might quibble and say that a definition of that kind might be false > >if in fact no one will call an X such that P a Q; or if, in fact, the > >devious author doesn't really mean a Y by X; or if "we" will not, in > >fact, often say that X glurbles Y when P(X,Y); and so forth. However, > >such objections ignore the role claims such as above have in > >mathematical language, acting as they do essentially as stipulations, > >analogously as one might say "let's call whoever it was who committed > >this heinous crime 'John Doe'". > > Is a stipulation a statement? Is a definition a statement? Is a > theorem a statement? Then my question remains as to what the > difference is between or among statements such that one can be true or > false and others not? Obviously the answer is that there is no such > difference. And like many simple and obvious answers, it is wrong. If it were not wrong, even someone like Zick could come up with ways of determining whether an excalmation was true or false or whether a request was, or whether a question was. Until Zick can come up with a reasonable set of rules for determining the truth or falsity of "Ouch!" and "Wake up!" and "Are we there yet?", he has no case.
From: Randy Poe on 1 Sep 2006 19:22 Lester Zick wrote: > On 1 Sep 2006 12:21:38 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > >Consider the example given above. It constitutes a > >definition of the phrase "John Doe" within the context > >of some legal process (let's say a trial). Are you prepared > >to declare that statement as true or false? > > I'm not prepared to deal with predicate combinations which are not > true, false, or ambiguous. You mean there are statements which have no truth value? And yet when we say a "definition" is a statement which has no truth value, you say there's no such thing. Strange... One might almost conclude that Zick doesn't have any clue what he himself is saying from one post to the next... - Randy
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 1 Sep 2006 19:25 Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> writes: > 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? Huh? Well, whatever your point might be, "checked it with the axioms" means actually, you know, checking it. With the axioms. Han didn't do that. -- Jesse F. Hughes "I already have major discoveries, which mathematicians have simply avoided bothering to inform the public about, so I'll solve the factoring problem, and that will end." JSH: A Man with a Plan!
From: Virgil on 1 Sep 2006 19:37 In article <gibhf2ltf4ebt1ueasfhbtr1jcg159s9no(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:05:50 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >In article <asfef2dp88qp6khme53ttl5kk6ilieuev8(a)4ax.com>, > > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:04:44 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <fd6ef2lhai4j05a73goceh4tveovu0lcvb(a)4ax.com>, > >> > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> >> So definitions in modern math are not true? > >> > > >> >Nor false. A definition is merely a request to allow one thing to > >> >represent another. > >> >Even if that other thing does not exist, one can at worst only decline > >> >the request. > >> > >> So now neomathematics is anthropomorphic too? My what a fantastic > >> beastie indeed. > > > >Beats Zick's neo-anti-mathematics every time. > > It certainly beats Zick's anti-neomathematkers every time. No matter how many such clubs Zick is a member of, he will not have any influence on the development of mathematics by reviling it.
From: Virgil on 1 Sep 2006 19:41
In article <gkbhf2hagrj3ovd23cnmnmo0nd12166t3d(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:50:40 EDT, fernando revilla > <frej0002(a)ficus.pntic.mec.es> wrote: > > >Sorry, surely you are being honest in this discussion > >but I can guess that there are a lot of problems of > >communication even in a non mathematical language. > > Don't patronize me, sport. Whyever not when you try to patronize everyone else? Do you think yourself somehow too good to be given back what you give out? Your not, sport. |