The Definition of Points
in [Math]
|
Prev: Guide to presenting Lemma, Theorems and Definitions
Next: Density of the set of all zeroes of a function with givenproperties
From: Virgil on 31 Mar 2007 21:54 In article <460ef914(a)news2.lightlink.com>, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > Virgil wrote: > > In article <460ee2bd(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > >> No, that's true, The ordinals don't make a set. They're more like a mob, > >> or an exclusive club with very boring members, that forget what their > >> picket signs say, and start chanting slogans from the 60's. > > > > Whatever your on, TO, is undoubtedly illegal. For shame! > > What I have in my possession is only a minor violation in this state, > and it's ridiculous to make a plant illegal anyway, especially one with > so many ties to human progress and insight. It was your consumption of it I was criticizing.
From: Virgil on 31 Mar 2007 21:55 In article <460ef966(a)news2.lightlink.com>, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > Virgil wrote: > > In article <460ee48e(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Why? What have I defined, if not a sequence? Is there a word for it? It > >> must "exist", if I assert so. > > > > Does TO now claim the right of God to make things exist by His command? > > > > I understand that God is a jealous God, and takes such usurpations in > > very bad part. > > I claim equal right to use existential instantiation. That is something you will have to sort out directly with your creator. But I don't think it is guaranteed in any Bill of Rights.
From: Virgil on 31 Mar 2007 21:59 In article <460f00a0(a)news2.lightlink.com>, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > Look back. The nth is equal to n. Inductive proof holds for equality in > the infinite case Not in vN. And inductive proofs do not work that way. One can prove by induction that something is true for each natural, but that does not create any infinite naturals for which it is true.
From: Virgil on 31 Mar 2007 22:01 In article <460f0317(a)news2.lightlink.com>, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > There are not zero, nor any finite number of reals in (0,1]. There are every finite and more of reals in (0,1].
From: Tony Orlow on 31 Mar 2007 22:03
Lester Zick wrote: > On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:42:06 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> > wrote: > >> Lester Zick wrote: >>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> It's universally meaningless in isolation. not(x) simply means >>>>>> "complement of x" or "1-x". You assume something else to begin with, >>>>>> which is not demonstrably true. >>>>> No I don't, Tony.I demonstrate the universal truth of "not" per se in >>>>> mechanically exhaustive terms through finite tautological reduction to >>>>> self contradictory alternatives which I take to be false to the extent >>>>> they're self contradictory. If you want to argue the demonstration per >>>>> se that's one thing but if you simply want to revisit and rehash the >>>>> problem per say without arguing the demonstration per se that's >>>>> another because it's a problem per say I have no further interest in >>>>> unless you can successfully argue against the demonstration per se. >>>>> >>>> not(not("not not")) >>>> >>>> "not not" is not self-contradictory-and-therefore-false. >>> Well, Tony, let me ask you. If "not not" were self contradictory would >>> you agree with me that "not" would be true of everything inasmuch as >>> it would represent the tautological alternative to and the exhaustion >>> of all possibilities for truth between "not" and "not not"? >> If "not not" were demonstrated to be a statement > > "To be a statement"? What makes it not a statement? > It no predicate. (fine, read "is" into that if you like, but be aware you're implying a predicate that's not stated...) >> that implied its own >> negation then "not not not" would have to be true, but it's only >> equivalent to "not" in the normal usage of "not", which doesn't make >> "not not" constitute a statement. > > Oooooookay then. Moving right along to the next true or not true > compounding of "not". > not. but, anyway... >>> Because I mean there are probably people out there who wouldn't agree >>> self contradiction is false hence tautological alternatives must be >>> true so I wouldn't know how to approach the demonstration of truth >>> with such people and if you're one such person I would see no point to >>> elaborating and arguing the problem further. >> Self-contradictory statements are false in a consistent universe. Let's >> assume the universe is consistent... > > Mightly nice of you. Or let's not. Makes me no never mind. > Don't makes me no nebbe mine nohows anyway, too...jes' wantin' things be consistent and what-not, so we knows what be de subject matter... >>> However if you do agree what is not universally self contradictory is >>> perforce universally true then all we really have to decide is whether >>> "not not" the "contradiction of contradiction" the "alternative to >>> alternatives" "different from differences" and so on are universally >>> false and if so what the tautological alternatives to such phrases may >>> be and the exhaustive structure and mechanization of truth as well as >>> the demonstration of truth in universal terms would become apparent. >>> >>> ~v~~ >> Not being universally self-contradictory does not make a statement true. >> It just leaves open the possibility... > > No of course it doesn't, Tony. Fact is it leaves open no possibility > whatsoever because every time I ask you what possibility it leaves > open you say none whatsoever per say. > > ~v~~ That's pro se, if you don't mind... 01oo |