The End of an Era - That of The Natural Numbers
in [Logic]
|
Prev: What are deliberately flawed & fallacious Arguments? Sophistry!
Next: sci.lang is not meant for advertising
From: Nam Nguyen on 15 Jun 2010 00:25 Marshall wrote: > 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. Where above did I _claim_ anything exist? I only asked you the question: >>>>>> So, Marhsall, does the-thing-that-doesn't-equal-itself equal itself, >>>>>> mathematically speaking? And I only praised you in your answering (in question form) "What thing are you speaking of?" that you couldn't know what I was asking you, in _the exact same manner_ I couldn't know what you meant when you asked to demonstrate x=x. In summary your belief that x=x is true in all case is making as much sense as asserting the-thing-that-doesn't-equal-itself equals itself, which is really _nonsensical_, mathematically speaking.
From: Marshall on 15 Jun 2010 00:33 On Jun 14, 9:25 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > Where above did I _claim_ anything exist? The claim that x=x isn't always true is a claim that there exists some thing that is not equal to itself. Marshall
From: Nam Nguyen on 15 Jun 2010 00:42 Marshall wrote: > On Jun 14, 9:25 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> Where above did I _claim_ anything exist? > > The claim that x=x isn't always true is a claim that there exists some > thing that is not equal to itself. What I asked you: > So, Marhsall, does the-thing-that-doesn't-equal-itself equal itself, > mathematically speaking? So, now you seem to have reversed your answer and claim "Yes" it's true the-thing-that-doesn't-equal-itself equals itself! I mean couldn't you give a clear cut answer "Yes" or "no" to my question? After all, you'd believe whatever the-thing-that-doesn't-equal-itself is it must equal to itself, right?
From: Marshall on 15 Jun 2010 03:12 On Jun 14, 9:42 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > On Jun 14, 9:25 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> Where above did I _claim_ anything exist? > > > The claim that x=x isn't always true is a claim that there exists some > > thing that is not equal to itself. > > What I asked you: > > > So, Marhsall, does the-thing-that-doesn't-equal-itself equal itself, > > mathematically speaking? > > So, now you seem to have reversed your answer and claim "Yes" it's true > the-thing-that-doesn't-equal-itself equals itself! > > I mean couldn't you give a clear cut answer "Yes" or "no" to my question? > After all, you'd believe whatever the-thing-that-doesn't-equal-itself is > it must equal to itself, right? There is another possibility you haven't mentioned, and that is that there is no thing which is not equal to itself, no matter the model. This happens to be the possibility that is actually true. In formal language, that is written as follows: x=x A lovely little statement that happens to be true in every model. Marshall PS. Or "Ax:x=x" if you want to get pedantic, which pretty much no one here ever does.
From: herbzet on 15 Jun 2010 03:45
Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > Daryl McCullough writes: > > > Yes, don't blame Marshall, blame me. > > I blame associate professor Chris Menzel. I blame Bush. -- hz |