Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Lester Zick on 2 Sep 2006 19:24 On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 12:25:01 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <7ggjf2hs0b696iqnenlsqia7vtl56n1c90(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 11:57:57 -0500, Manny Feld >> <Manny.Feldl(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Lester Zick wrote: > >> >> Then they aren't true. >> > >> >Nor are they false. In an axiomatic (or postulational) system you show >> >that a subset of the possible formulas or statements of the system >> >follow from the basic assumptions by way of agreed upon rules of inference. >> >> Well thanks so much again for your opinion on the subject, Manny. Not >> that it matters very much. > >Since Manny's opinions above happen to be right, where Zick's on that >issue have not been, Manny's opinions matter a good deal more than any >of Zick's opinions. Well at least we've found one thing which cannot be false, your opinions. >> >For example: Is it true or false that a geodesic between two points of a >> >space is a Euclidean straight line connecting the points? >> >> The only thing defined between points are straight line segments, >> sport. > >That idiocy shows just how limited Zick's knowledge of mathematics is. Unfortunately in your and Manny's cases my knowledge of idiots is much more extensive. >> >In an axiomatic or formal system the question is NOT what is true, but >> >what follows from the assumptions. >> >> So in modern mathspeak you have no interest in what is true? > >That may be Zick's deliberate misinterpretation, but does not affect the >TRUTH of whether a particular conclusion follows logically from a >particular set of assumptions, and this is precisely the sort of TRUE >that mathematicians are interested in. So your axioms and definitions can be false but not your opinions? Can anyone say mooooo? ~v~~
From: Virgil on 2 Sep 2006 19:27 To the OP's question, Zick repeatedly responds affirmatively. And then confirms it with ample evidence
From: Lester Zick on 2 Sep 2006 19:28 On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:48:57 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <5dhjf25pla1s873m6snta25ba1lcc5mvf5(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:06:06 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >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. >> >> So your answer is what? That stipulations are not statements or that >> definitions are not statements or that theorems are not statements or >> what exactly? > >My answer is that exclamations, requests, commands, questions, etc, >even when grammatically sentences, are not declarations, and only >delarations need be either true or false. So is this a declaration, sport? >If Zick wants to include "not a declaration" under the heading of >ambiguous, he might make a case that every sentence must have one of his >truth values, "true", "false" or "ambiguous". So is this not a declaration, sport? >But it is a lousy case. But it seems to be the only case you have. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 2 Sep 2006 19:30 On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:54:26 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <okhjf2tprv74k1ruej4fjnoshub42jkccb(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 13:22:56 +0300, Aatu Koskensilta >> <aatu.koskensilta(a)xortec.fi> wrote: >> >> >MoeBlee wrote: >> >> Aatu Koskensilta wrote: >> >>> MoeBlee's answer might be considered somewhat more obfuscated than >> >>> necessary. >> >> >> >> My purpose was not to give just an informal explanation, but also to >> >> explain that, and how, this is formalized. >> > >> >Why? Do you think the formalism will help Zick? >> >> Formalisms for "true", "false", and "infinity" might help Zick >> considerably if they were true. > >Zick seems to object to anyone else having an opinion of what "true" Opinions? I don't object to opinions. If it weren't for opinions you and Manny wouldn't have anything to say. >means, and to bolster his own Know-Nothing position declines to express >any opinion of his own on what "true" means. Only because I don't know how to issue declarations. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 2 Sep 2006 19:36
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 12:32:12 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <srgjf2tjitdjhmckalhbakdgp913fd37k0(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On 1 Sep 2006 16:22:42 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> 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? >> >> I mean there are statements which are true, false, or ambiguous. > >Do you mean that there are declarative statements that need not be >either true or false? What are they then, chopped liver? Yes. >> >And yet when we say a "definition" is a statement which has >> >no truth value, you say there's no such thing. >> >> Can't tell what you imagine that means. > >Zick has had no previous such blanks in telling people what they imagine >and what they mean, so why now? Just because you're you. >> >One might almost conclude that Zick doesn't have any >> >clue what he himself is saying from one post to the next... >> >> What I'm not saying is that definitions in modern mathspeak are true. >> Neither are you. > >Zick would be a good deal wiser, or atpresent an appearance of being so, >by not_saying a lot more. Thanks again, sport, for your opinion on a subject you know not whereof you speak. ~v~~ |