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 19:16 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:33:39 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> Does logic "exist". >> >> Yes. >Prove it from first principles. Unless, of course, you're just "positing". No I'm not just positing. As pointed out in the immediately preceeding post logic is mechanized in tautological terms because there is no alternative to alternatives. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:17 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:33:39 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >The difference between which duck? Whichever duck, Tony. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:19 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:29:44 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> Of course, Tony. You just take assumptions for granted. I don't. >> That's the whole context of the discussion. Mathematikers and empirics >> can't be bothered to demonstrate their assumptions. >> > >Which class do you fall into? Lester e Mathematikers, or Lester e >Empirics, or Lester e Bullshitters? What have you demonstrated, besides >exhaustive somethingorother? That's it, Tony. Don't pay any attention to what I say then complain I haven't said what I said and don't pay any attention to what you say. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:19 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:29:44 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> Well it's about time you started to ask questions, Tony, instead of >> making problematic proclamations of mathematical certitude. > >You don't answer questions, Lester. Did you this time? ... Beats the hell outta me, Tony. Was there a question? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:21
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:29:44 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> I don't >> assume there is any such thing as truth. I just posit a mechanism of >> universal tautological contradiction and show that one alternative is >> self contradictory so I assume the other alternative is universally >> characteristic of everything which is not self contradictory and that >> is what I call true just as I call self contradiction false. In other >> words it's the mechanics underlying the determination of true and >> false that I'm trying to get at and not just the proclamation of true >> and false and the binary mechanics of working with those results. > >Oh. You don't assume. You posit. Huh! Is that like depositing, as >opposed to withdrawing? You're certainly not withdrawing, that I can >see. What does "posit" mean? It's like demonstrating what I posit, Tony, and you don't demonstrate what you posit. You just posit. ~v~~ |