The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 21:10 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:51:49 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >A logical statement can be classified as true or false? True or false? You show me the demonstration of your answer, Tony, because it's your question and your claim not mine. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 21:12 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:58:31 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >How many arguments do true() and false() take? Zero? (sigh) >Well, there they are. Zero-place operators for your dining pleasure. Or negative place operators, or imaginary place operators, or maybe even infinite and infinitesimal operators. I'd say the field's pretty wide open when all you're doing is guessing and making assumptions of truth. Pretty much whatever you'd want I expect.Don't let me stop you. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 1 Apr 2007 21:14 On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:03:35 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> Not being universally self-contradictory does not make a statement true. >>> It just leaves open the possibility... >> >> No of course it doesn't, Tony. Fact is it leaves open no possibility >> whatsoever because every time I ask you what possibility it leaves >> open you say none whatsoever per say. >> >> ~v~~ > >That's pro se, if you don't mind... No it's per say, Tony, because I have yet to see you demonstrate the truth of anything you've had to say per se. ~v~~
From: Tony Orlow on 2 Apr 2007 10:49 Mike Kelly wrote: > On 1 Apr, 04:44, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> cbr...(a)cbrownsystems.com wrote: >>> On Mar 31, 5:45 pm, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote:> >>>> Yes, NeN, as Ross says. I understand what he means, but you don't. >>> What I don't understand is what name you would like to give to the set >>> {n : n e N and n <> N}. M? >>> Cheers - Chas >> N-1? Why do I need to define that uselessness? I don't want to give a >> size to the set of finite naturals because defining the size of that set >> is inherently self-contradictory, > > So.. you accept that the set of naturals exists? But you don't accept > that it can have a "size". Is it acceptable for it to have a > "bijectibility class"? Or is that taboo in your mind, too? If nobody > ever refered to cardinality as "size" but always said "bijectibility > class" (or just "cardinality"..) would all your objections disappear? > Yes, but my desire for a good way of measuring infinite sets wouldn't go away. >> given the fact that its size must be equal to the largest element, > > That isn't a fact. It's true that the size of a set of naturals of the > form {1,2,3,...,n} is n. But N isn't a set of that form. Is it? It's true that the set of consecutive naturals starting at 1 with size x has largest element x. Is N of that form? > > -- > mike. >
From: Lester Zick on 2 Apr 2007 11:19
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:21:29 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> Is the true for R or N? No. > >Can TO prove that? Prove that what? ~v~~ |