The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Alan Smaill on 16 Apr 2007 15:40 Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> writes: > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 01:03:22 +0100, Alan Smaill > <smaill(a)SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > >>knew you wouldn't get it, >>irony is not a strong point with Ziko. > > I'll grant you I'm much more adept at hyperbolic rhetorical irony than > simplistic irony which tends to go right past me much as mathematitcs > tends to go right past you. self-ascription of abilities is another Ziko trait; some improvement on the irony level her, thuogh ... >>nor indeed do you bother defending your own view that you can use >>Hospital to work out the value for 0/0. > > I never claimed L'Hospital's rule was valid. I assume its validity tsk tsk > or > at least its utility was established by L'Hospital much as I assume > the validity or at least the uitility of 1+1=2 has been established by > others just as I assume you're a mathematiker because you're too lazy > or stupid to demonstrate the truth of your arguments but not too lazy > or stupid to formulate arguments whose truth you can't demonstrate. clearly; your failure to explain why l'Hospital might be applicable to work out a value for 0/0 is equally clear. >>well, there you go. > > Yes indeedy do, Snail. indeedy indeed. > ~v~~ -- Alan Smaill
From: Lester Zick on 16 Apr 2007 19:49 On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:40:45 +0100, Alan Smaill <smaill(a)SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> writes: > >> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 01:03:22 +0100, Alan Smaill >> <smaill(a)SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>>knew you wouldn't get it, >>>irony is not a strong point with Ziko. >> >> I'll grant you I'm much more adept at hyperbolic rhetorical irony than >> simplistic irony which tends to go right past me much as mathematitcs >> tends to go right past you. > >self-ascription of abilities is another Ziko trait; >some improvement on the irony level her, thuogh ... If not exactly on the spelling level. ~v~~
From: Tony Orlow on 17 Apr 2007 12:18 MoeBlee wrote: > On Apr 13, 12:11 pm, Tony Orlow <t...(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> I had said that, hoping you might give some explanation, but you didn't >> really. > > Since you posted that, I wrote a long post about the axiom of choice. > Now it's not showing up in the list of posts. Darn! I went into a lot > of detail and answered your questions; I don't want to write it all > again; maybe it will show up delayed. > > MoeBlee > > That's too bad. Thanks for your effort, and sorry it's taken several days to respond. TOEKnee
From: Tony Orlow on 17 Apr 2007 12:20 Lester Zick wrote: > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:45:46 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> > wrote: > >> Lester Zick wrote: >>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:31:52 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> The point being, Tony, that you don't have a first answer much less a >>> second or third. You can't tell me or anyone else what it means to be >>> true in mechanically exhaustive terms. Mathematikers routinely demand >>> students deal in the most exacting exhaustive mechanical terms with >>> axioms, theorems, and doctrines of their own. Yet the moment they're >>> required to deal with their own axioms, doctrines, and assumptions of >>> truth in mechanically exhaustive terms they shy away with complaints >>> no one can expect to prove the truth of what they assume to be true. >>> >>> You draw up all kinds of binary "truth" tables as if they meant or had >>> to mean something in mechanically exhaustive terms and demand others >>> deal with them in binary terms you set forth. Yet you can't explain >>> what you mean by "truth" or "falsity" in mechanically exhaustive terms >>> to begin with. So how do you expect anyone to deal with truth tables? >>> >>> ~v~~ >> Just answer the question above. > > What question? You seem to think there is a question apart from > whether a statement is true or false. All your classifications rely on > that presumption. But you can't tell me what it means to be true or > false so I don't know how to answer the question in terms that will > satisfy you. > > ~v~~ A logical statement can be classified as true or false? True or false? In other words, is there a third option, for this or any other statement? 01oo
From: Tony Orlow on 17 Apr 2007 12:20
Lester Zick wrote: > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:33:20 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> > wrote: > >> Lester Zick wrote: >>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:35:36 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> Tony, you might just as well be making all this up as you go along >>> according to what seems reasonable to you. My point was that you have >>> no demonstration any of these characteristics in terms of one another >>> which proves or disproves any of these properties in mechanical terms >>> starting right at the beginning with the ideas of true and false. >>> >>> ~v~~ >> Sorry, Lester, but that's an outright lie. I clearly laid it out for >> you, starting with only true and false, demonstrating how not(x) is the >> only 1-place operator besides x, true and false, and how the 2-place >> operators follow. For someone who claims to want mechanical ground-up >> derivations of truth, you certainly seem unappreciative. > > Only because you're not doing a ground up mechanical derivation of > true or false. You're just telling me how you employ the terms true > and false in particular contexts whereas what I'm interested in is how > true and false are defined in mechanically reduced exhaustive terms. > What you clearly laid out are the uses of true and false with respect > to one another once established. But you haven't done anything to > establish true and false themselves in mechanically exhaustive terms. > > ~v~~ Again, define "mechanics". 01oo |