An uncountable countable set
in [Math]
|
Prev: integral problem
Next: Prime numbers
From: Lester Zick on 31 Oct 2006 17:48 On 30 Oct 2006 17:02:21 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Tony Orlow wrote: >> I am beginning to realize just how much trouble the axiom of >> extensionality is causing here. > >Oh, now the axiom of extensionality. > >When you buy into Robinson's non-standard analysis you buy into the >axiom of extensionality, and all the other axioms of set theory, and >mathematical logic - the whole kit and kaboodle - including the axiom >of choice, ordinals, and uncountable cardinals, and all the >"transfinitology" (even if not with platonistic committments) you so >strenuously disclaim. Would somebody care to list all or even most of the modern math axioms so we can have kind of a scorecard to keep track? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 31 Oct 2006 17:51 On 30 Oct 2006 17:45:48 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> According to MoeBlee mathematical definitions require a "domain of >> discourse" variable such as IN(x) and OUT(x). > >I did not say that. Regarding a particular definition I gave, I >explained to you that the variable ranges over the domain of discourse >of any given model. I didn't say, in general, that definitions >"require" variables (some defininitonal forms do require variables, but >not all definitions do), nor did I suggest using variables in the >mindless way you have done in certain examples you've posted that >misrepresent the actual definition I gave. Then exactly why did you go apeshit over the issue, Moe? You know as long as you keep on trying to bassackwards analyze the issue I'm going to keep needling you about it. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 31 Oct 2006 17:53 On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 13:31:51 -0400, David Marcus <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: >imaginatorium(a)despammed.com wrote: >> Anyway, I'm getting a giggle from hearing about you "reading" Robinson; >> makes me wonder if that's how you can find anything of merit in >> Lester's endless drivel - you just cruise through looking for an >> attractive sentence here or there? > >If you don't realize that the words are supposed to convey rigorous >mathematics, you can read a math book the same way that you do a novel. >I fear that most undergraduates who are not math majors read their math >books this way. And most moder math professors ineptly compose them to be read that way for much the same reason because they have no idea whether what they're saying is true. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 31 Oct 2006 17:55 On 30 Oct 2006 16:23:16 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Tony Orlow wrote: >> Intuitionistic logicians reject that a false premise >> implies anything. > >Name such an intuitionistic logician and the work in which this >appears. > >Intutitionistic logic DOES have the principle > >For all formulas P, > >f -> P > >('f', the 'falsehood' symbol is often a primitive of intuitionistic >(and certain formulations of classical) logic). > >Youv'e got it wrong, shooting of your big mouth on that which you know >nothing, as usual. Whereas you just shoot off your small mouth, Moe, and whine when you get called on it. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 31 Oct 2006 17:55
On 30 Oct 2006 16:41:46 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Tony Orlow wrote: > >> I just don't get it. > >But don't forget: > >~v~~ > >It explains it all. Moe back in action once more. ~v~~ |