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: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 18:41 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:07:09 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> I don't know what anything is, Tony. I'm still trying to come to terms >> with "truth". You seem to think you've already come to terms with >> "truth" "strings" "grammar" "language" and um "meaning". You're quite >> fortunate in this respect. I should be so lucky. It might help if I >> could just assume the truth of whatever I was babbling about without >> having to demonstrate its truth in mechanically exhaustive terms like >> you and Moe(x) but then I guess I'm just more particular. >> >>> What's the difference between a duck? >> >> 46. >> >> ~v~~ > >Incorrect. One leg is both the same. Swell. So what? >So, start with uncertainty. Then, build truth from such statements. >Start with the line, and determine the point of intersection. Just >remember, when the lines are moving, so is the point. Swell. Where do you get the line? ~v~~
From: David R Tribble on 17 Apr 2007 18:42 Tony Orlow writes: >> ala L'Hospital's theft from the Bernoullis, and >> the division by 0 proscription. > Alan Smaill wrote: > and Zick was the one who claimed that he would use l'Hospital to work > out the right answer for 0/0. such a japester, eh? Geez. How many posts before someone points out that it's l'Hôpital's rule? L'Hospital is where you take someone after they get punched in the nose by a mathematician after saying "l'Hospital's rule". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Hopital%27s_Rule p.s. Those who disparage Wikipedia's accuracy always have the option of improving the articles themsleves.
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 18:43 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:39:45 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> I wasn't commenting on whether your assumptions are consistent with >> your axioms, Tony. I was asking whether your assumptions were true. >So, then. it's not true that every statement is either true or false. >What about the statement that every statement is true or false? That's >false? Perhaps it's not possible to determine the root of truth in any >deductive manner, but that determining truth of statements is an >infinite regress called "science". Have you considered that notion? Naturally. I don't know what you think you're talking about but the answer is still 46. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 18:47 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:39:45 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> Sure. Happens all the time. However if you're asking whether a >> statement must be one or the other the answer is no. There are >> problematic exceptions to the so called excluded middle. >Please eloborate. "Black is crows" is ambiguous in general terms and neither true nor false since "crows are black". Hence we find that "crows are black" is true but "black is not crows" is true too in general scientific terms. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 18:48
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:39:45 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> Well your phrase "exploring the meaning of truth" is ambiguous, Tony, >> because what you're really doing is exploring consequences of truth or >> falsity given assumptions of truth or falsity to begin with, which is >> an almost completely trivial exercise in comparison with the actual >> determination of truth in mechanically exhaustive terms initially. >> > >I am exploring the mechanics of truth, and its pursuit, which you are >not, really, as far as I can tell. You're exploring the mechanics of using truth once established but I see no indication you're exploring the mechanics of truth otherwise. ~v~~ |