Logic

When Is it Easier to Prove a Stronger Result?
One obvious case is when proving by induction. Any others? C-B ... 21 Jan 2010 18:03

Is This really a Proof that Standard Math is Inconsistent?
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:05:39 -0800 (PST), KevinSimonson <kvnsmnsn(a)hotmail.com> wrote: When I was exposed to math in highschool, I was taught that one way to prove something was to assume the opposite of that something and then derive conclusions from that opposite. If I ever arrived at a conclusion that I k... 25 Jan 2010 21:51

why finite-number versus infinite-number cannot be a primitive concept as point or line #319 ; Correcting Math
pnyikos wrote: On Jan 16, 11:38 am, Archimedes Plutonium (snipped) Why not examine your own definition of Finite versus Infinite. My own, inexpressible-to-others concept, has been under severe examination since 1978, when I made a searching study of the foundations of mathematics and reali... 2 Feb 2010 16:34

1890-1990 RetrogradeRenaissance of Math; why 0.999... is not = 1; #310 Correcting Math
yeas, the word, definition, is itself an etonym of "finite;" congratulation. now, if you re-de-finite the ellipsis ( ... ), to mean other than the usual use in practically all of mathematics, as far as I know -- but, perhaps, Fermat did not bother to use it -- then you may be able to create a new de-finite-ion ... 20 Jan 2010 18:35

Cardinality Beyond Coret's
Hi, I believe that I managed to come with a definition of Cardinality that works under grounds strictly weaker than that of Coret's assumption of every set being equinumerous to some well founded set. Scott's cardinals require Coret's assumption, and as far as I know among all known defined cardinals, Scott'... 19 Jan 2010 00:20

Survey of Math Professors defining "finite number" #305; CorrectingMath
Archimedes Plutonium wrote: David Bernier wrote: A wrote: (snipped) I find this extremely hard to believe. Can you provide some evidence that this actually happened? Seconded. Without standard quoting conventions or the equivalent, we don't know if Archimedes Plutonium is paraphrasing, ... 18 Jan 2010 21:02

everyone who accepted the Reals, accepted the definition of finite-number #309 Correcting Math
Now here is Wikipedia talking about Real Numbers: --- quoting Wikipedia on Real Numbers --- A real number may be either rational or irrational; either algebraic or transcendental; and either positive, negative, or zero. Real numbers are used to measure continuous quantities. They may in theory be expressed by deci... 18 Jan 2010 02:06

sci.math-survey and math textbook survey of defining "finite number" #308; Correcting Math
Archimedes Plutonium wrote: Alright, most people who are in math or dabble in math are going to "shut-up" once asked to define precisely what is a "finite number versus an infinite- number". Occasionally, some misguided person is going to belch out "finite-set" not knowing that we are talking a... 17 Jan 2010 16:11

sci.math-survey and math textbook survey of defining "finite number" #307; Correcting Math
Alright, most people who are in math or dabble in math are going to "shut-up" once asked to define precisely what is a "finite number versus an infinite- number". Occasionally, some misguided person is going to belch out "finite-set" not knowing that we are talking about numbers, not sets. And even so, if we sadd... 18 Jan 2010 23:15

modal logic exercise
I just started going through _Dynamic Epistemic Logic_ by van Ditmarsch et al. I am a little rusty on modal logic and have gotten stuck on an early exercise. The problem is actually misstated in the book, but I'm pretty sure that what they mean (or, the component of what they're asking for that I'm stuck on) is... 25 Jan 2010 17:22