Prev: Why can no one in sci.math understand my simple point?
Next: Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity is NOT an attractive force between bodies
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 29 Jun 2010 08:08
Charlie-Boo <shymathguy(a)gmail.com> writes:

> All of these are simple applications of self-reference to some domain.
> E.g. (4): If truth were definable in logic, then there would be a
> sentence that expresses "This is not true." which violates the premise
> that every sentence is true or false.

No, it violates the premise that no sentence is both true and false.

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi)

"Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Herman Jurjus on 29 Jun 2010 09:41
On 6/29/2010 8:03 AM, Bill Taylor wrote:
>>>>> I've never studied axioms of sets all theoretical,
>>>>> But that's just ted'ous detail, whereas MY thoughts are heretical
>>>>> And cause the so-called experts rather quickly to exasperate,
>>>>> While I sit back and mentally continue just to ....
>>
>>> aspirate?
>
> So far so good...
>
>> pontificate? luxuriate?
>
> See what I mean Barb? - these guys just can't scan!
>
>> defecate?
>
> Well he can, but I thought the ending was very clearly "contemplate".
>
> What else could it be?
>
> -- anon

Vaporate?

--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
From: herbzet on 29 Jun 2010 21:55


Frederick Williams wrote:
> Bill Taylor wrote:
> >
> > > > > >I've never studied axioms of sets all theoretical,
> > > > > >But that's just ted'ous detail, whereas MY thoughts are heretical
> > > > > >And cause the so-called experts rather quickly to exasperate,
> > > > > >While I sit back and mentally continue just to ....
> > >
> > > > aspirate?
> >
> > So far so good...
> >
> > > pontificate? luxuriate?
> >
> > See what I mean Barb? - these guys just can't scan!
> >
> > > defecate?
> >
> > Well he can, but I thought the ending was very clearly "contemplate".
> >
> > What else could it be?
>
> We could have a mass debate to try to decide.

I think we have enough mass debating on this board already.

--
hz
From: Bill Taylor on 30 Jun 2010 00:59
> > What else could it be?
>
> We could have a mass debate to try to decide.
_ _____ _ _
| | | ___ | | | | |
_\|/_ | | | | | | | | |_| _\|/_
/|\ | |_ | |__| | | |_ _ /|\
|___| |_____| |___| |_|

_ _____ _ _
| | | _ | | | | |
_\|/_ | | | | | | | | |_| _\|/_
/|\ | |_ | |_| | | |_ _ /|\
|___| |_____| |___| |_|

JOKE OF THE WEEK.
From: Barb Knox on 30 Jun 2010 05:44
In article
<26041754-ba8d-4310-9ed7-49e118642be1(a)y2g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Taylor <w.taylor(a)math.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:

> On Jun 25, 10:30 pm, Barb Knox <s...(a)sig.below> wrote:
>
> > Non-Cantorian's Song
> >
> > I am the very model of a modern non-Cantorian,
> > With insights mathematical as good as any saurian.
> > I rattle the Establishment's foundations with prodigious ease,
> > And supplement the counting numbers with some new infinities.
> > I've never studied axioms of sets all theoretical,
> > But that's just ted'ous detail, whereas MY thoughts are heretical
> > And cause the so-called experts rather quickly to exasperate,
> > While I sit back and mentally continue just to ....
>
> VERY GOOD INDEED!
>
> And, unlike almost all modern spoofy ditties, it *actually scans*!!
> Most people have great problems with this matter.

Yeah, they have no sense of rhythm.


> Barb - you are definitely on my hero(ine) list!

Fiddle-dee-dee!

> -- Beaming Bill
>
> ** Haiku's inventor
> ** Must have had seven fingers
> ** On his middle hand.
>
> Starting at zero,
> Accumulate where needed:
> Ordinal heaven!


A lot of people don't know that Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote haiku.
Here is the first part of his poem "Evangeline: A Tale of Arcadie" --

This is the forest
Primeval, the murmuring
Pines and the hemlocks.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Prev: Why can no one in sci.math understand my simple point?
Next: Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity is NOT an attractive force between bodies