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 27 Apr 2007 15:17 On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:25:19 +0100, Ben newsam <ben.newsam.remove.this(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>You are. I am not. To me, "1" and "0" are sufficient, and "true" and >>>"false" are adequate aliases for them. >> >>So apparently would be figs and ideas. > >No, please remember that it was you who erroneously suggested that >they might be Sure they would be and please remember it was you who erroneously thought mutual exclusion meant mutual exhaustion of alternatives. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 27 Apr 2007 15:23 On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:25:19 +0100, Ben newsam <ben.newsam.remove.this(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Presuming we already understand TvN binary mathematical logic >>>>sufficiently, what's the purpose of assigning the aliases "true" and >>>>"false" to 1 and 0? Obviously it's to pretend real truth and falsehood >>>>share identical properties with mathematical binary 1 and 0 when in >>>>fact we know nothing of the kind until we can demonstrate they share >>>>identical properties. And the fact you call 1 and 0 by other names has >>>>no affect on the properties of 1 and 0 or on the properties associated >>>>with those other names. >>> >>>They are both mutually exclusive, and everything must be either one or >>>the other. If you think they are not synonymous, perhaps you could >>>point out how they are not? >> >>Or perhaps you could point out how they are synonymous? > >1 = true >true = 1 >0 = false >false = 0 > >To say that something is either true or false is true, 1 + 0 = 1 >To say that something is both true and false is false, 1 * 0 = 0 > >Perhaps you could now point out how they are not? Well as long as we're drafting arbitrary synonymies and claiming arbitrary arithmetic properties for "true" and "false without proof perhaps you could demonstrate exactly why the same properties don't apply to "figs" and "ideas". I mean as long as you're guessing you might just as well guess what properties everything has that causes true=1 and false=0 where no other set of things does so there won't be any further confusion about which things are mutually exhaustive and which things aren't. I mean as long as you're guessing. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 27 Apr 2007 15:54 On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:50:35 -0400, Wolf <ElLoboViejo(a)ruddy.moss> wrote: >>>>> Presuming we already understand TvN binary mathematical logic >>>>> sufficiently, what's the purpose of assigning the aliases "true" and >>>>> "false" to 1 and 0? Obviously it's to pretend real truth and falsehood >>>>> share identical properties with mathematical binary 1 and 0 when in >>>>> fact we know nothing of the kind until we can demonstrate they share >>>>> identical properties. And the fact you call 1 and 0 by other names has >>>>> no affect on the properties of 1 and 0 or on the properties associated >>>>> with those other names. >>>> They are both mutually exclusive, and everything must be either one or >>>> the other. If you think they are not synonymous, perhaps you could >>>> point out how they are not? >>> Or perhaps you could point out how they are synonymous? >> >> 1 = true >> true = 1 >> 0 = false >> false = 0 >> >> To say that something is either true or false is true, 1 + 0 = 1 >> To say that something is both true and false is false, 1 * 0 = 0 >> >> Perhaps you could now point out how they are not? > > >No, he can't, or won't, because he doesn't understand, or else doesn't >accept, Boolean logic. He's into Truth - some absolute something or >other out there that only the Zickster can intuit. That's why he loses >his cool when the rest of us, with our paltry operational definitions of >truth (NB the lower case) refuse to believe that he's discovered The >Secrets Of The Universe. Here he is, offering us The Truth on an >electronic platter, and we shake our heads and mutter "nutter." No >wonder he loses his cool, and indulges in picayune sarcasm and foul >mouthed insult. > >The more seriously you discuss his frothings, the angrier he gets, >because serious discussion shows up the depth of his nonsense and >vastness of his ignorance. Well, Wolf, in all the years we've discussed math and science all I've ever seen you advance are problematic psychological arguments and claims. I mean are we really supposed to say the Zickster's arguments are false because Wolf says he's neurotic? Even assuming I were, just as I imagine you could make the same assumption of everyone on the usenet on some grounds or other, would that apply to my arguments? In other words even if I were neurotic would that make my arguments neurotic? I really suspect you need a new schtick to hang your mathematical and scientific rationales on. Maybe you should consider explaining why you feel my demonstration of the mechanical origin of boolean conjunctions in terms of "not" compoundings wrong or why you consider "not not" or the "contradiction of contradiction" not self contradictory or what "alternatives to alternatives" you envision instead of blaming me for your own shortcomings and those of others and the contempt all of you seem to feel for truth and demonstrations of truth in universal terms. ~v~~
From: Ben newsam on 27 Apr 2007 17:02 On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:58:29 -0700, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:11:24 +0100, Ben newsam ><ben.newsam.remove.this(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:16:01 -0700, Lester Zick >><dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> >>>Who cares whether it solves the equation if the equation does not >>>determine the truth of x or 4? >> >>It determines nothing, it *states* that two things are equal. In other >>words, it states that the two things being equal is "true". > >Well see, Ben, therein lies the rub. How do you know it's true? I'll >grant you that's what you assume it says. But your statement that it >says that is not a mathematical statement. The mathematical part >simply says they're equal and makes no claim to truth in general. I'll say it again: it states that the two things being equal is "true". That's the beauty of logic, it does what it says on the can. In the nineteenth century, their version of logic was as convoluted and complex as you seem to want to make it, and they didn't get very far with it either.
From: Ben newsam on 27 Apr 2007 17:04
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:54:53 -0700, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >Maybe you should consider explaining why you >feel my demonstration of the mechanical origin of boolean conjunctions >in terms of "not" compoundings wrong or why you consider "not not" or >the "contradiction of contradiction" not self contradictory or what >"alternatives to alternatives" you envision instead of blaming me for >your own shortcomings and those of others and the contempt all of you >seem to feel for truth and demonstrations of truth in universal terms. Now take a deep breath, and explain that in English. |