The End of an Era - That of The Natural Numbers
in [Math]
|
From: Marshall on 14 Jun 2010 23:24 On Jun 14, 7:36 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > On Jun 13, 9:32 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> In all that _Marshall still doesn't have any valid argument_ for his statement > >> that x=x is true in _all_ contexts of FOL reasoning. > > > It's true in all contexts in which there isn't anything that is not > > equal to > > itself. Can you find a context where x is not equal to x? Please show > > me an x, any x, that is not equal to itself. Go on, Potato Chip, > > show me one. > > So, Marhsall, does the-thing-that-doesn't-equal-itself equal itself, > mathematically speaking? What thing are you speaking of? Marshall
From: Nam Nguyen on 14 Jun 2010 23:28 Marshall wrote: > On Jun 14, 7:36 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> Marshall wrote: >>> On Jun 13, 9:32 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>>> In all that _Marshall still doesn't have any valid argument_ for his statement >>>> that x=x is true in _all_ contexts of FOL reasoning. >>> It's true in all contexts in which there isn't anything that is not >>> equal to >>> itself. Can you find a context where x is not equal to x? Please show >>> me an x, any x, that is not equal to itself. Go on, Potato Chip, >>> show me one. >> So, Marhsall, does the-thing-that-doesn't-equal-itself equal itself, >> mathematically speaking? > > What thing are you speaking of? Good technical answer Marshall, for once. So what is the x thing were you talking about when you asked "Can you find a context where x is not equal to x?"?
From: Marshall on 14 Jun 2010 23:38 On Jun 14, 8:28 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > On Jun 14, 7:36 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> Marshall wrote: > >>> On Jun 13, 9:32 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >>>> In all that _Marshall still doesn't have any valid argument_ for his statement > >>>> that x=x is true in _all_ contexts of FOL reasoning. > >>> It's true in all contexts in which there isn't anything that is not > >>> equal to > >>> itself. Can you find a context where x is not equal to x? Please show > >>> me an x, any x, that is not equal to itself. Go on, Potato Chip, > >>> show me one. > >> So, Marhsall, does the-thing-that-doesn't-equal-itself equal itself, > >> mathematically speaking? > > > What thing are you speaking of? > > Good technical answer Marshall, for once. So what is the x thing were > you talking about when you asked "Can you find a context where x is not > equal to x?"? I thought that *you* were the one claiming that x=x is not true in all contexts. Marshall
From: Nam Nguyen on 14 Jun 2010 23:33 Marshall wrote: > On Jun 14, 8:28 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> Marshall wrote: >>> On Jun 14, 7:36 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>>> Marshall wrote: >>>>> On Jun 13, 9:32 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>>>>> In all that _Marshall still doesn't have any valid argument_ for his statement >>>>>> that x=x is true in _all_ contexts of FOL reasoning. >>>>> It's true in all contexts in which there isn't anything that is not >>>>> equal to >>>>> itself. Can you find a context where x is not equal to x? Please show >>>>> me an x, any x, that is not equal to itself. Go on, Potato Chip, >>>>> show me one. >>>> So, Marhsall, does the-thing-that-doesn't-equal-itself equal itself, >>>> mathematically speaking? >>> What thing are you speaking of? >> Good technical answer Marshall, for once. So what is the x thing were >> you talking about when you asked "Can you find a context where x is not >> equal to x?"? > > I thought that *you* were the one claiming that x=x is not true in > all contexts. I'm still claiming that. What have I just said that made you think otherwise?
From: Marshall on 15 Jun 2010 00:14
On Jun 14, 8:33 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > On Jun 14, 8:28 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> Marshall wrote: > >>> On Jun 14, 7:36 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >>>> Marshall wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 13, 9:32 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >>>>>> In all that _Marshall still doesn't have any valid argument_ for his statement > >>>>>> that x=x is true in _all_ contexts of FOL reasoning. > >>>>> It's true in all contexts in which there isn't anything that is not > >>>>> equal to > >>>>> itself. Can you find a context where x is not equal to x? Please show > >>>>> me an x, any x, that is not equal to itself. Go on, Potato Chip, > >>>>> show me one. > >>>> So, Marhsall, does the-thing-that-doesn't-equal-itself equal itself, > >>>> mathematically speaking? > >>> What thing are you speaking of? > >> Good technical answer Marshall, for once. So what is the x thing were > >> you talking about when you asked "Can you find a context where x is not > >> equal to x?"? > > > I thought that *you* were the one claiming that x=x is not true in > > all contexts. > > I'm still claiming that. What have I just said that made you think > otherwise? The fact that you asked me about the thing that you claim exists, and I claim doesn't exist. Marshall |