From: Jesse F. Hughes on
Charlie-Boo <shymathguy(a)gmail.com> writes:

> On Dec 20, 11:45 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>> Charlie-Boo <shymath...(a)gmail.com> writes:
>> > That means that the universal set is representable.  There is a wff
>> > w1(x) that is provable for all values x being substituted for the x.
>>
>> Right.  Like, say, w1(x) could be x = x.  
>>
>> How is this fascinating?
>
> Yes, that's right. (I was wondering if anyone would notice.)

Sure, it was a test.

It looked like a stupid blunder, but it was a test.

You're a clever one, you are.

--
Jesse F. Hughes
"You do know that after the get done with [outlawing] cigarettes,
they're gonna come after guns, right?"
-- AM talk radio host Mike Gallagher
From: Charlie-Boo on
On Dec 22, 7:52 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> Charlie-Boo <shymath...(a)gmail.com> writes:
> > On Dec 20, 11:45 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> >> Charlie-Boo <shymath...(a)gmail.com> writes:
> >> > That means that the universal set is representable.  There is a wff
> >> > w1(x) that is provable for all values x being substituted for the x.
>
> >> Right.  Like, say, w1(x) could be x = x.  
>
> >> How is this fascinating?
>
> > Yes, that's right.  (I was wondering if anyone would notice.)
>
> Sure, it was a test.
>
> It looked like a stupid blunder, but it was a test.

Actually, I realized it after I read it one more time after posting
it. (This happens from time to time. No need to rationalize.) I
guess you can say it was a blunder that turned into an unintentional
test - I did in fact wonder who would notice, of course, as would
anyone - mayhaps even yourself?

Anywho, as far as my questions about addition and multiplication, and
the original (broader) question about characterizing what Peano's
Axioms really say about a system that contains them go, . . . ?

> You're a clever one, you are.

As are you - when you're talking about Mathematics, i.e.

C-B

> --
> Jesse F. Hughes
> "You do know that after the get done with [outlawing] cigarettes,
> they're gonna come after guns, right?"
>                           -- AM talk radio host Mike Gallagher

From: Jesse F. Hughes on
Charlie-Boo <shymathguy(a)gmail.com> writes:

> On Dec 22, 7:52 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>> Charlie-Boo <shymath...(a)gmail.com> writes:
>> > On Dec 20, 11:45 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>> >> Charlie-Boo <shymath...(a)gmail.com> writes:
>> >> > That means that the universal set is representable.  There is a wff
>> >> > w1(x) that is provable for all values x being substituted for the x.
>>
>> >> Right.  Like, say, w1(x) could be x = x.  
>>
>> >> How is this fascinating?
>>
>> > Yes, that's right.  (I was wondering if anyone would notice.)
>>
>> Sure, it was a test.
>>
>> It looked like a stupid blunder, but it was a test.
>
> Actually, I realized it after I read it one more time after posting
> it. (This happens from time to time. No need to rationalize.) I
> guess you can say it was a blunder that turned into an unintentional
> test - I did in fact wonder who would notice, of course, as would
> anyone - mayhaps even yourself?

Sorry for the insinuation.

But, no, I didn't wonder who would notice. I don't know who reads
your posts and with what attention. Personally, I skimmed it and
didn't bother to respond to the post generally, pointing out this one
obvious oddity and skipping over the reasonableness of Occam's razor
when it comes to mathematical theories and so on.

> Anywho, as far as my questions about addition and multiplication, and
> the original (broader) question about characterizing what Peano's
> Axioms really say about a system that contains them go, . . . ?
>
>> You're a clever one, you are.
>
> As are you - when you're talking about Mathematics, i.e.

It's nice you're trying out Latin abbreviations, but I'm not sure
you've quite got them down.

--
Jesse F. Hughes
"You may not realize it but THOUSANDS of people read my posts.
You are putting your stupidity on wide display."
-- James S. Harris knows about wide displays of stupidity.
From: spudnik on
I have never learned what i.e. & e.g. abbreviate, but if
they mean "that is" and "for example," then
the usual usages seem somewhat contrary to normal English grammar,
unless one uses a comma e.g..

--l'Oeuvre!
www.wlym.com
From: Jan Burse on
Charlie-Boo schrieb:
> 1. Loop: FOR(X){ . . . }
> 2. Assignment: A<=B
> 3. Conditional: (A=B){ . . . }
> 4. End loop: STOP
> 5. End program: HALT A

If 3. does not allow recursion, than it is not
turing complete (=partial recursive). Then its
only primitive recursive.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Cardinality, Number, and Identity
Next: Natural numbers