An uncountable countable set
in [Math]
|
Prev: integral problem
Next: Prime numbers
From: Lester Zick on 31 Oct 2006 17:56 On 30 Oct 2006 17:05:50 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On 27 Oct 2006 11:43:47 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Lester Zick wrote: >> >> >By having read a proof. >> >> >> >> A proof that there can be "no consistent theory . . .". Truly >> >> fascinating. Do tell us more about this proof. >> > >> >I said no such thing as that there is a proof that there is no >> >consistent theory. >> >> Especially considering your judicious pruning of the comments >> involved. > >There's nothing I left out that justifies representing me as having >claimed that there is a proof that there is no consistent theory. Thanks. I guess we'll just have to take your word for it. ~v~~
From: MoeBlee on 31 Oct 2006 18:08 Lester Zick wrote: > Whereas you just shoot off your small mouth, Moe, and whine when you > get called on it. A vaccuous claim. MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 31 Oct 2006 18:22 Lester Zick wrote: > 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? Because you kept representing that I said what I did not say, you idiot. > You know as > long as you keep on trying to bassackwards analyze the issue I'm going > to keep needling you about it. Your logic is profound. You altered my formulations to make it look as if your alterations are what I claim myself. Then I asked you not to do that. And now you twist that into something else again. MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 31 Oct 2006 18:25 Lester Zick wrote: > 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? For your own scorecard? I did once post a thread for Tony Orlow so that he'd have the axioms for reference. But what would be the point for you since you are even less familiar than is Orlow with the notation of first order predicate calculus in which these are axioms are precisely stated? MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 31 Oct 2006 18:29
Lester Zick wrote: > >There's nothing I left out that justifies representing me as having > >claimed that there is a proof that there is no consistent theory. > > Thanks. I guess we'll just have to take your word for it. The burden is not on me to show that I didn't claim that there's a proof that there is no consistent theory. MoeBlee |