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 19:05 On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:17:31 +0100, Ben newsam <ben.newsam.remove.this(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:23:39 -0700, Lester Zick ><dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >>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. > >Well... if everything that is not a fig is an idea, and everything >that is not an idea is a fig, then you have the set of everything, >same as you do with "true" and "false". Sure. But you're not demonstrating why "true" and "false" are mutually exhaustive but "figs" and "ideas" aren't. All you're doing is assigning mutually exhaustive binary arithmetic 1 and 0 to one set but not to the other. > The negation of "true" is >"false", and (IIRC) set theory states that the union of any set with >its complement equals the domain (something like that anyway). Well so you say but so you don't prove. It's very nice you think "true" and "false" are mutually exhaustive but I'd prefer a little proof for a change. > Now, >the symbol you choose for "false" is conveniently zero, but the symbol >for "true" is to a certain extent arbitrary, so long as the >arithmentic works. I have seen programming labguages where "true" is >-1. This has certain advantages that I won't go into here. I could care less which symbols you choose to represent "true" and "false". The fact is that we already have perfectly adequate symbols in "true" and "false". And we don't need other "arithmetic" symbols unless we intend to do arithmetic with them. ~v~~
From: Bob Kolker on 27 Apr 2007 21:17 Ben newsam wrote: > > A reasonable point in a way, as long as whatever scheme you eventually > come up with provides useful results. Useful and Lester do not coexist. Bob Kolker
From: Bob Cain on 27 Apr 2007 22:20 Lester Zick wrote: > How can truth in mechanically reduced universal terms not be useful? That could be. Why don't you give it a try? Provide a demonstration of such a truth using the mechanics of the world ("not" is not mechanics.) Given a demonstration we might be able to assess its usefulness. Until then the meaning of "truth in mechanically reduced universal terms" has meaning only to you (if to you.) Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein
From: Lester Zick on 28 Apr 2007 13:36 On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:17:55 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >Ben newsam wrote: > >> >> A reasonable point in a way, as long as whatever scheme you eventually >> come up with provides useful results. > >Useful and Lester do not coexist. Just as Bob and true do not coexist. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 28 Apr 2007 14:44
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:20:13 -0700, Bob Cain <arcane(a)arcanemethods.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: > >> How can truth in mechanically reduced universal terms not be useful? > >That could be. Why don't you give it a try? Provide a demonstration >of such a truth using the mechanics of the world ("not" is not >mechanics.) "Not" is NOT mechanics hey? Boolean conjunctions aren't mechanics hey? Which "mechanics of the world" did you have in mind exactly, Stringfellow? The mechanics where you mechanize angular mechanics with a piece of string? The mechanics where you mechanize Michelson- Morley without FLT? The mechanics where you mechanize Einstein's isotropy without anisometry? I'd like to see you mechanize anything without "not" or some equivalent such as contradiction, alternatives, or differences. Even more curious I'd like to see you provide a demonstration for such a "mechanics of the world" without "not", contradiction, or differences. I define a universally exhaustive mechanics between "not" which is true of everything and "not not" which is self contradictory. And all you can do is whine and snivel that "not" is NOT mechanics. Maybe you'd like to explain why the "contradiction of contradiction" is not self contradictory for a change? Go right ahead give it a try. I see all the bully boys NOT demonstrating the truth of the mechanics they advocate so why should you be any DIFFERENT? Let's see you demonstrate the truth of all the mechanics, logic, and conjunctions you use without regression to "not" "contradiction" and "differences". > Given a demonstration we might be able to assess its >usefulness. How? >Until then the meaning of "truth in mechanically reduced universal >terms" has meaning only to you (if to you.) Well I can readily appreciate you and others are too lazy or stupid to grasp the implications of mechanically reduced exhaustive truth in universal terms. Somehow that's just not very surprizing. What's more surprizing however is the willingness with which you abandon the very concepts of truth and demonstrable truth. Or maybe you never had it to begin with. You don't even argue the concept. You just say it ain't so. But the question is how do you know? You're mighty long on arbiter dicta and mighty short on demonstrations of truth for what you say. All you've got is a pissant philosophy which says you aren't required to demonstrate the truth of what you opine. Then the moment you get beyond the primitive level of "one, two, three, . . . many" or as Asimov said "One, Two, Three . . . Infinity" words and interrelated concepts, empirics surrender any attempt at scientific argument and are reduced to the incoherent babble of psychological motivational analysis instead of critical arguments. One thing's for sure. You may think I'm wrong. But you sure as hell aren't right because you definitely aren't the arbiter of truth in any terms at all, mechanically reduced exhaustive universal or otherwise. ~v~~ |