The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Tony Orlow on 12 Apr 2007 14:23 Lester Zick wrote: > On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:18:16 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> > wrote: > >> Lester Zick wrote: >> >>> Mathematikers still can't say what an infinity is, Bob, and when they >>> try to they're just guessing anyway. So I suppose if we were to take >>> your claim literally we would just have to conclude that what made >>> physics possible was guessing and not mathematics at all. >> Not true. Transfite cardinality is well defined. > > I didn't say it wasn't, Bob. You can do all the transfinite zen you > like. I said "infinity". > >> In projective geometry points at infinity are well defined (use >> homogeneous coordinates). > > That's nice, Bob. > >> You are batting 0 for n, as usual. > > Considerably higher than second guessers. > > ~v~~ That's okay. 0 for 0 is 100%!!! :) 01oo
From: Tony Orlow on 12 Apr 2007 14:29 Lester Zick wrote: > 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~~ So, you're not interested in classifying certain propositions as "true" and others as "false", so each is either true "or" false? I coulda swored you done said that....oh nebbe mine! 01oo
From: Tony Orlow on 12 Apr 2007 14:30 Lester Zick wrote: > 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? Some commonly understood mapping between strings and meaning, basically. Care to define what your strings mean? :)1oo > >>> 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: Tony Orlow on 12 Apr 2007 14:31 Lester Zick wrote: > 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~~ I am asking you whether that statement is true or false. If you have a third answer, I'll be happy to entertain it. 01oo
From: Tony Orlow on 12 Apr 2007 14:35
Lester Zick wrote: > 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~~ Okay, so if there are no parameters to the function, you would like to say there's an imaginary, or real, or natural, or whatever kind of parameter, that doesn't matter? Oy! It doesn't matter. true() and false() take no parameters at all, and return a logical truth value. They are logical functions, like not(x), or or(x,y) and and(x,y). Not like not(). That requires a logical parameter to the function. 01oo |