Logic
in [Science]
|
Meaning, Presuppositions, Truth-relevance, Goedel's Theorem andthe Liar Paradox On Aug 11, 10:22 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: Newberry <newberr...(a)gmail.com> writes: On Aug 11, 6:59 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: Newberry <newberr...(a)gmail.com> writes: A lot of people are absolutely convinced that e.g. PA is consistent. But an... 13 Aug 2010 11:24
Meaning, Presuppositions, Truth-relevance, Goedel's Theorem and Newberry says... If (Ex)Pxm is necessarily false then according to the principles of truth-relevant logic ~(Qm & (Ex)Pxm) is ~(T v F). No, it's ~(T & F). The reason is that it is analogous to ~(Q & (P & ~P)) Please see section 2.2 of my paper. So you are saying that ~(Qm & (Ex) Pxm) ... 13 Aug 2010 09:12
MAKE UPTO $5000 P/M $2000 ON YOUR FIRST 30 DAYS MAKE UPTO $5000 P/M $2000 ON YOUR FIRST 30 DAYS Get paid for surfing in online $100 on your first day how can you earn money The following network is related to online money making programme For everyone join here they will get $1 If you refer 100 members to this network you will earn $100 If you refer 1000 m... 12 Aug 2010 07:06
alas, a proof of Goldbach without appeal to Algebra #5.25 Correcting Math I wrote earlier: Sorry about all that thrashing around, but am settled, although tired. It is not a proof by Mathematical Induction nor Fermat's Infinite Descent, although it appears as such. I figured out what makes it work, or what forces it to become a summand of two primes. It is not... 12 Aug 2010 06:02
UK maths-- rotten apple, thanks to L Walker sttscitr...(a)tesco.net wrote: (when the rudeness is cut, there is nothing left) The troubles began when L. Walker said Iain Davidson had a true proof. Iain Davidson sttscitr...(a)tesco.net wrote: > 1) A natural is prime if it has preceisly two distinct divisors > 2) Every natural >1 has at least... 12 Aug 2010 07:06
proof of Goldbach without appeal to Galois Algebra, but some new math appears #5.24 Correcting Math Archimedes Plutonium wrote: Let me throw out the last post, as a too tired to think properly with the mistakes of (K-3, 3) , (K-5, 5) for those are not even numbers. Let me start over to see if (K-2,2) can by itself handle all Goldbach repairs. Here are the first twenty five primes: 2, 3, 5,... 12 Aug 2010 06:02
Goldbach, only indeed is a mistake, and, fixed the mistake #5.23 Correcting Math Let me throw out the last post, as a too tired to think properly with the mistakes of (K-3, 3) , (K-5, 5) for those are not even numbers. Let me start over to see if (K-2,2) can by itself handle all Goldbach repairs. Here are the first twenty five primes: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47... 12 Aug 2010 02:48
proof of Goldbach, indeed, without needing any fancy Galois Algebra #5.22 Correcting Math I have the proof, yes indeed, and it does not need any algebra. It simply is a Fermat Infinite Descent or mathematical induction. It is rather a pathetically silly proof in that it does not teach us anything new and the technique of mathematical induction is rather boring and not stimulating. So I rather wish we ... 12 Aug 2010 01:44
Meaning, Presuppositions, Truth-relevance, Goedel's Theorem and the Liar Paradox Newberry <newberryxy(a)gmail.com> writes: On Aug 11, 6:59 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: Newberry <newberr...(a)gmail.com> writes: A lot of people are absolutely convinced that e.g. PA is consistent. But anyway the point is that IF ~(Ex)Pxm then ~(Ex)[Pxm & ((x = x... 12 Aug 2010 09:17
improving my Goldbach proof without needing Galois Algebra #5.21 Correcting Math Archimedes Plutonium wrote: (snipped) The more I think about this, the more I realize I do not need the Algebra of interchange between multiplication and addition, where both require a minimum of two primes for every Even Number >2. Let me crudely write out the proof, continually improving ... 12 Aug 2010 01:44 |