In a Consistent System, Can a True Sentence Imply a False One?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: when math defines the boundary between finite versus infinite at 10^500 #696 Correcting Math
Next: FLT like 4Color Mapping, Poincare C. and Kepler Packing #697 Correcting Math
From: Frederick Williams on 31 Jul 2010 11:27 Nam Nguyen wrote: > > Frederick Williams wrote: > > Nam Nguyen wrote: > > > >> Be honest, straight forward, to the points, logical, conforming to the 4 > >> Principles (Consistency, Compatibility, Symmetry, and Humility). > > > > People aren't symmetrical, though you may have to know them rather > > intimately to discover this. > > > > The immediate antecedent sentence before that is: > > >> I'd venture to guess that, in the context of making mathematical > >> arguments, HE'd advise something like: > > Please note my "in the context of making mathematical arguments"; and it's > obvious that "conforming" would refer to the made "arguments". We all do > snip, cut writings, quotes, what have we in responses, and that might > not have been a perfect written piece of English, but you couldn't really > understand a simple paragraph to point of rather severely distorting > (your "intimately to discover this") what people have said? > > I'm really not sure anymore what some people might be thinking these days, > when it comes to discussing mathematical reasoning! Nobody familiar with sci.logic expects to find much mathematical reasoning there. -- I can't go on, I'll go on.
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 31 Jul 2010 11:32 Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: > At the expense of somebody's else arguments, while they have > contributed zero effort in the post(s) where the "fun" is in? Well, sometimes people don't quite succeed when they try to be funny, and people differ in what they regard as funny. But I don't see anything to suggest Frederick was trying to put you down. Lighten up. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Nam Nguyen on 31 Jul 2010 11:41 Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: > >> At the expense of somebody's else arguments, while they have >> contributed zero effort in the post(s) where the "fun" is in? > > Well, sometimes people don't quite succeed when they try to be funny, > and people differ in what they regard as funny. But I don't see anything > to suggest Frederick was trying to put you down. Lighten up. Sure. We ought to change the name though: to "sci.comical.logic.arguments"! Would you happen to know where the real "sci.logic" be? (I've actually never come across it to know what it's like!). Thanks. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Normally, we do not so much look at things as overlook them. Zen Quotes by Alan Watt -----------------------------------------------------------
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 31 Jul 2010 11:46 Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: > Would you happen to know where the real "sci.logic" be? In the yesteryear. There are some competent people still around, though. It seems most of them have concluded it's a waste of their time to discuss logic with you. I have in the past offered some reflections and advice on what you might want to do about this. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Nam Nguyen on 31 Jul 2010 12:34
Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: > >> Would you happen to know where the real "sci.logic" be? > > In the yesteryear. There are some competent people still around, > though. Agree. > It seems most of them have concluded it's a waste of their time > to discuss logic with you. "Waste of time" is rather subjective though and doesn't really portrait anything much on the surface of it, I'm afraid. I've had a couple of related questions: Q1: Is it impossible (in principle, hence in practice) to know the truth value of cGC (which is the FOL sentence "There are infinitely many counter examples of GC")? Q2: Should the answer of Q1 be a yes, is it reasonable to consider the truths about the natural numbers relative, in general? Off and on I've done some searching but to no avail that those competent people actually "wasted" their time explaining the answers in technical details whileI actually didn't listen to them. I've seen them doing some technical 1-3 post expositions in the "yesteryear.logic". And wonder if they'd be kind enough to do a similar expositions on Q1 and Q2 this time. Let me saying something by paraphrasing what MoeBlee said earlier: Oh, lordy lordy, I SWORE to you...please, God in heaven, make me have two good ears to hear what sci.logic has to offer on the answers of Q1 and Q2. I promise to Thee that once the answers have been clearly explained, my posting to the forum will be gone like a carefree wind: I'd neither write a proof, nor a disproof, nor an undecidability, or any thing, to this forum anymore Your mortal reasoning servant, Nam D. Nguyen So my 2 humble ears are waiting, for the technical answers on Q1 and Q2. > I have in the past offered some reflections > and advice on what you might want to do about this. It has been a long past, distant from where I'm standing in this bank of the time river, it seems. Would it be OK with you if you could refresh my memory again, either in the forum or my email, what they might be? Thanks. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Normally, we do not so much look at things as overlook them. Zen Quotes by Alan Watt ----------------------------------------------------------- |