Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 2 Sep 2006 19:32 Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> writes: > On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:46:04 -0400, "Jesse F. Hughes" > <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > >>Now, if you ask whether the axioms of arithmetic suffice to prove >>10/5 = 2, well that's a different matter. But Han sure as heck did >>not check. > > Some reason he should? No reason at all. Aside from the fact that he *said* that he checked it with the axioms. This was a lie. A harmless exaggeration, perhaps. No great moral failing, but for some reason you seem completely unable to see this point. Han said he did something he did not do. That's all. I have no idea what you're going on and on about. -- "I am one of those annoying people who is so good at so many things that I can't seem to pick one. I can seriously party. But I can also sit for long periods concentrating profusely on some problem or other."-- James S Harris: Thinker. Serious partyer. Renaissance man.
From: Virgil on 2 Sep 2006 23:21 In article <lh3kf2ddd2ojjumc0gup6dmvvh6bngdr75(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:46:04 -0400, "Jesse F. Hughes" > <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > > >Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> writes: > > > >>>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. > >> > >> So the conclusions of arithmetic haven't been checked with the axioms > >> of arithmetic? Curiouser and curioser. > > > >Han said that *he* checked a certain equation with the axioms. Since > >he does not know what axioms apply, he cannot be telling the truth. > > So arithmetic is not justified by resort to axioms? > > >Now, if you ask whether the axioms of arithmetic suffice to prove > >10/5 = 2, well that's a different matter. But Han sure as heck did > >not check. > > Some reason he should? Only that if one says one has done something, it is proper to have actually done it. But that level of moral/ethical obligation is clearly quite foreign to Zick.
From: Virgil on 2 Sep 2006 23:29 In article <3g4kf2hvka7iv7v68oocm9s5u6kbv489p0(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 12:25:01 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >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? Zick seems always to read between the lines of what I say and find what is not there but to miss what is in the lines themselves. To begin with Zick speaks nonsense when he speaks of definitions being true or false. And the 'opinions' he so unjustly derides are more than merely mine.
From: Virgil on 2 Sep 2006 23:34 In article <9q4kf2pbiake5kptq0qehlljplabbe7h7m(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > 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 you can't figure that out for yourself, sport, you are too dim to comment upon mathematics at all. > > >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? As far as Zick is concerned, it only matters whether Zick intends to include among those things he calls declarations?
From: Virgil on 2 Sep 2006 23:56
In article <4t4kf2phpmptgut1bepl91pfbie4eab4nq(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:54:26 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >Zick seems to object to anyone else having an opinion of what "true" > >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. You just issued one anyway! |