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 17 Jun 2010 00:41 Marshall wrote: > On Jun 16, 9:00 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> Marshall wrote: >>> On Jun 15, 11:41 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>>> Marshall wrote: >>>>> On Jun 15, 11:12 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>>>> > So what's your definition of an open formula being true in a model, >>>>> > to begin with? >>>>> How many times do you need me to say I don't follow Shoenfield? > > Pretty much everyone except you understands me just fine, Potato Chip. How come you always ignore this question put forward to you: >>>>> > So what's your definition of an open formula being true in a model, >>>>> > to begin with? and always take refuge in the non-technical and failed "Potato Chip" analogy? Are you not competent to answer the question?
From: Marshall on 17 Jun 2010 00:44 On Jun 16, 9:41 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > On Jun 16, 9:00 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> Marshall wrote: > >>> On Jun 15, 11:41 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >>>> Marshall wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 15, 11:12 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >>>>> > So what's your definition of an open formula being true in a model, > >>>>> > to begin with? > >>>>> How many times do you need me to say I don't follow Shoenfield? > > > Pretty much everyone except you understands me just fine, Potato Chip. > > How come you always How come I always fail to be taken in by your distractions? Cause they're stupid, that's why. Marshall
From: Nam Nguyen on 17 Jun 2010 01:14 Marshall wrote: > On Jun 16, 9:41 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> Marshall wrote: >>> On Jun 16, 9:00 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>>> Marshall wrote: >>>>> On Jun 15, 11:41 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>>>>> Marshall wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 15, 11:12 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>>>>>> > So what's your definition of an open formula being true in a model, >>>>>>> > to begin with? >>>>>>> How many times do you need me to say I don't follow Shoenfield? >>> Pretty much everyone except you understands me just fine, Potato Chip. >> How come you always > > How come I always fail to be taken in by your distractions? > Cause they're stupid, that's why. So the idea x=x is always true that _you believe_ is stupid, because defining it (an open formula) to be true is a stupid distraction?
From: Marshall on 17 Jun 2010 01:43 On Jun 16, 10:14 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > On Jun 16, 9:41 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> Marshall wrote: > >>> On Jun 16, 9:00 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >>>> Marshall wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 15, 11:41 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >>>>>> Marshall wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jun 15, 11:12 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >>>>>>> > So what's your definition of an open formula being true in a model, > >>>>>>> > to begin with? > >>>>>>> How many times do you need me to say I don't follow Shoenfield? > >>> Pretty much everyone except you understands me just fine, Potato Chip.. > >> How come you always > > > How come I always fail to be taken in by your distractions? > > Cause they're stupid, that's why. > > So the idea x=x is always true that _you believe_ is stupid, because > defining it (an open formula) to be true is a stupid distraction? No, you are stupid, because you say stupid things, and when people get close to cornering you about your stupidity, you throw up stupid distractions, like your last 8 messages. Your claim that you might be a potato chip is stupid, because you don't really believe it. Claiming that every formula in an empty model is false is stupid. Proclaiming the death of the natural numbers is stupid. You're just a giant black hole of stupid. Stupid gets caught up in your gravitational embrace and can't escape. Also, my continuing to engage with you is stupid. I really must stop. Marshall
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 17 Jun 2010 06:02
Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: > So what's in you mind the definition of x=x being true be, model > theoretically speaking? Can you _explicitly_ state the definition? Just read some more Shoenfield. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus |