The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:26 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:29:44 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> Let me ask you something, Tony. When you send off for some truth value >> according to "true(x)" and it returns a 1 or 0 or whatever, how is the >> determination of that "truth value" made? > > From the truth values of the posited assumptions, of course, just like >yours. So you just posit truth values and wing it whereas I'm more inclined to demonstrate the truth of what I posit instead? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:27 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:29:44 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >And if it's just made in >> accordance with the manipulation of other "truth values" how are those >> "truth values" determined? > >That's an inductive matter, based on evidence, and in the case of math, >the acceptability of the conclusions derived from the posited assumptions. In other words you just guess? More or less what I thought. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:29 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:29:44 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> Or is it all just a bunch of running "truth >> value" manipulations with no beginning or end? If that's all they are >> then you have no reason to call "truth values" "truth" values and you >> might just call them what they are 1's and 0's because that's all they >> really are. > >You cannot deduce conclusions without inducing assumptions, for the sake >of logical consideration. And "inducing" assumptions by any other name is called guessing. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 17 Apr 2007 19:30 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:29:44 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> So what all this nonsense comes down to is that your "truth values" >> have no beginning in actual mechanical terms because they're given to >> you by assumption and not demonstrated in mechanical terms and all >> those conjunctions and conjunctive manipulations you describe are just >> so many arbitrary translation rules to work with otherwise meaningless >> 1's and 0's. >> >> ~v~~ > >0 and 1 are meaningful. They are nothing and all. Not interested, Tony. Save it for church. ~v~~
From: stephen on 17 Apr 2007 20:21
In sci.math David R Tribble <david(a)tribble.com> wrote: > Tony Orlow writes: >>> ala L'Hospital's theft from the Bernoullis, and >>> the division by 0 proscription. >> > Alan Smaill wrote: >> and Zick was the one who claimed that he would use l'Hospital to work >> out the right answer for 0/0. such a japester, eh? > Geez. How many posts before someone points > out that it's l'H�pital's rule? But that would spoil the joke. Stephen |