The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 20:54 On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 07:14:57 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >Tony Orlow wrote: > >> >> >> Bob - wake up. How do we know relativity is correct? Because it follows >> from e=mc^2? > >Correct in what sense. Mathematically, relativity theory is simply an >excercise in Poincare groups. As a physics theory, we insist on >empirical corroberation of the conclusions that are interpreted to say >something about the world. Conventional mathematics says nothing whatsoever about the world, Bob, as you call. Quite possibly I'm the first to demonstrate what can be proven of the real world logically and mathematically. The rest is only your imagination and assumptions of truth about the real world. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 21:02 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:14:27 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Yeah, "true" and "false" and "or" are kinda ambiguous, eh?" They are where your demonstrations of their truth are concerned because there don't seem to be any. You just trot them out as if they were obvious axiomatic assumptions of truth not requiring any mechanical basis whatsoever or demonstrations on your part. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 21:04 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:14:27 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> You need to define what relation your grammar denotes, or there is no >>> understanding when you write things like "not a not b". What grammar did you have in mind exactly, Tony? >> Of course not. I didn't intend for my grammar to denote anything in >> particular much as Brian and mathematikers don't intend to do much >> more than speak in tongues while they're awaiting the second coming. >> > >Then, what, you're not actually saying anything? Of course I am. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 21:05 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:14:27 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> Choose true or false above, and I guarantee you'll see it's the relation OR. >> >> Of course it is, Tony. I just tried to slip one over on you. OR Brian >> OR Virgil OR Stephen OR PD OR David Or Mikey Or someone else >> without saying so. >> >> ~v~~ > >I think you mean AND. ;) Doesn't really matter. They're all the same. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 21:07
On 31 Mar 2007 22:36:51 -0700, "Brian Chandler" <imaginatorium(a)despammed.com> wrote: >> Did you learn that trick from Lester? > >Don't think so. You think Lester is acting? I'd be curious to know what you think I'm doing, Brian. ~v~~ |