The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Ben newsam on 27 Apr 2007 04:11 On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:16:01 -0700, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >Who cares whether it solves the equation if the equation does not >determine the truth of x or 4? It determines nothing, it *states* that two things are equal. In other words, it states that the two things being equal is "true".
From: Ben newsam on 27 Apr 2007 04:25 On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:12:42 -0700, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:53:10 +0100, Ben newsam ><ben.newsam.remove.this(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:39:35 -0700, Lester Zick >><dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:25:25 +0100, Ben newsam >>><ben.newsam.remove.this(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>What you fail to realise is that binary 1 and 0 are synonymous with >>>>the terms "true" and "false". >>> >>>And what you fail to realize, Ben, is that you haven't proven this is >>>true. It's merely an assumption on your part. If the terms "true" and >>>"false" were truly synonymous with binary 1 and 0 in this sense why >>>wouldn't the same apply to "figs" and "ideas" or any other pair of >>>synonyms? >> >>If figs and ideas are mutually exlusive, and everything is either a >>fig or an idea, then yes that would be fine. > >You think figs and ideas aren't mutually exclusive? I'd like to see >one that is the other. What ideas I have about figs are irrelevant. Read the above again: *If* figs and ideas are mutually exlusive, *and* everything is *either* a fig *or* an idea ... >>>There is no reason here to suggest any true synonomy between TvN >>>binary 1 and 0 and "true" and "false" except a desire to systematize >>>descriptions of "true" and "false" in binary mathematical terms but >>>without extrapolating the truth of "true" and "false" in mechanically >>>exhaustive terms to begin with. >>> >>>> Also synonymous would seem to be the >>>>terms "mathematical" and your odd phrase "mechanically reduced >>>>exhaustive universal". >>> >>>If we were merely assigning arbitrary aliases I would agree. The fact >>>however is that what we're doing is trying to ascertain the truth of >>>"true" and "false" in mechanical terms and not just assigning aliases. >> >>You are. I am not. To me, "1" and "0" are sufficient, and "true" and >>"false" are adequate aliases for them. > >So apparently would be figs and ideas. No, please remember that it was you who erroneously suggested that they might be. > >>>Presuming we already understand TvN binary mathematical logic >>>sufficiently, what's the purpose of assigning the aliases "true" and >>>"false" to 1 and 0? Obviously it's to pretend real truth and falsehood >>>share identical properties with mathematical binary 1 and 0 when in >>>fact we know nothing of the kind until we can demonstrate they share >>>identical properties. And the fact you call 1 and 0 by other names has >>>no affect on the properties of 1 and 0 or on the properties associated >>>with those other names. >> >>They are both mutually exclusive, and everything must be either one or >>the other. If you think they are not synonymous, perhaps you could >>point out how they are not? > >Or perhaps you could point out how they are synonymous? 1 = true true = 1 0 = false false = 0 To say that something is either true or false is true, 1 + 0 = 1 To say that something is both true and false is false, 1 * 0 = 0 Perhaps you could now point out how they are not?
From: Wolf on 27 Apr 2007 09:50 Ben newsam wrote: > On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:12:42 -0700, Lester Zick > <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:53:10 +0100, Ben newsam >> <ben.newsam.remove.this(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:39:35 -0700, Lester Zick >>> <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:25:25 +0100, Ben newsam >>>> <ben.newsam.remove.this(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> What you fail to realise is that binary 1 and 0 are synonymous with >>>>> the terms "true" and "false". >>>> And what you fail to realize, Ben, is that you haven't proven this is >>>> true. It's merely an assumption on your part. If the terms "true" and >>>> "false" were truly synonymous with binary 1 and 0 in this sense why >>>> wouldn't the same apply to "figs" and "ideas" or any other pair of >>>> synonyms? >>> If figs and ideas are mutually exlusive, and everything is either a >>> fig or an idea, then yes that would be fine. >> You think figs and ideas aren't mutually exclusive? I'd like to see >> one that is the other. > > What ideas I have about figs are irrelevant. Read the above again: > *If* figs and ideas are mutually exlusive, *and* everything is > *either* a fig *or* an idea ... > >>>> There is no reason here to suggest any true synonomy between TvN >>>> binary 1 and 0 and "true" and "false" except a desire to systematize >>>> descriptions of "true" and "false" in binary mathematical terms but >>>> without extrapolating the truth of "true" and "false" in mechanically >>>> exhaustive terms to begin with. >>>> >>>>> Also synonymous would seem to be the >>>>> terms "mathematical" and your odd phrase "mechanically reduced >>>>> exhaustive universal". >>>> If we were merely assigning arbitrary aliases I would agree. The fact >>>> however is that what we're doing is trying to ascertain the truth of >>>> "true" and "false" in mechanical terms and not just assigning aliases. >>> You are. I am not. To me, "1" and "0" are sufficient, and "true" and >>> "false" are adequate aliases for them. >> So apparently would be figs and ideas. > > No, please remember that it was you who erroneously suggested that > they might be. >>>> Presuming we already understand TvN binary mathematical logic >>>> sufficiently, what's the purpose of assigning the aliases "true" and >>>> "false" to 1 and 0? Obviously it's to pretend real truth and falsehood >>>> share identical properties with mathematical binary 1 and 0 when in >>>> fact we know nothing of the kind until we can demonstrate they share >>>> identical properties. And the fact you call 1 and 0 by other names has >>>> no affect on the properties of 1 and 0 or on the properties associated >>>> with those other names. >>> They are both mutually exclusive, and everything must be either one or >>> the other. If you think they are not synonymous, perhaps you could >>> point out how they are not? >> Or perhaps you could point out how they are synonymous? > > 1 = true > true = 1 > 0 = false > false = 0 > > To say that something is either true or false is true, 1 + 0 = 1 > To say that something is both true and false is false, 1 * 0 = 0 > > Perhaps you could now point out how they are not? No, he can't, or won't, because he doesn't understand, or else doesn't accept, Boolean logic. He's into Truth - some absolute something or other out there that only the Zickster can intuit. That's why he loses his cool when the rest of us, with our paltry operational definitions of truth (NB the lower case) refuse to believe that he's discovered The Secrets Of The Universe. Here he is, offering us The Truth on an electronic platter, and we shake our heads and mutter "nutter." No wonder he loses his cool, and indulges in picayune sarcasm and foul mouthed insult. The more seriously you discuss his frothings, the angrier he gets, because serious discussion shows up the depth of his nonsense and vastness of his ignorance. -- Wolf "Don't believe everything you think." (Maxine)
From: Lester Zick on 27 Apr 2007 13:37 On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:13:00 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >Virgil wrote: > >> >> How can we be sure that Zick isn't just an alter ego of Orlow? > >Have they ever been photographed or televised together? You should know that photos and TV can be faked, Bob, just like your knowledge of math. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 27 Apr 2007 14:58
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:11:24 +0100, Ben newsam <ben.newsam.remove.this(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:16:01 -0700, Lester Zick ><dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >>Who cares whether it solves the equation if the equation does not >>determine the truth of x or 4? > >It determines nothing, it *states* that two things are equal. In other >words, it states that the two things being equal is "true". Well see, Ben, therein lies the rub. How do you know it's true? I'll grant you that's what you assume it says. But your statement that it says that is not a mathematical statement. The mathematical part simply says they're equal and makes no claim to truth in general. ~v~~ |