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 May 2010 01:45 Marshall wrote: > On May 13, 11:06 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> They didn't want to call me as a "crank" so they >> labeled me "philosophical" and somehow that might have stayed in >> people's minds. > > For the record: you, Nam Nguyen, are a crank. Your record of course. Which include the knowledge that an inconsistent would have a model! > > > Marshall
From: Nam Nguyen on 15 May 2010 01:51 Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: > >> For what it's worth, I actually didn't believe you intended to jump >> on the bandwagon. They didn't want to call me as a "crank" so they >> labeled me "philosophical" and somehow that might have stayed in >> people's minds. > > Oh, goodness, no! You're ramblings are *not* philosophical. > Goodness! You didn't use the word "crank", "philosophical", but you used "ramblings": what the difference would that make? You still have not explained, for example, why the knowledge of the naturals is not an intuitive knowledge! It's always _easy_ to jump on a bandwagon. Why don't you for once take a little difficult road and stay objective in making arguments about foundation problems in FOL reasoning.
From: Marshall on 15 May 2010 09:04 On May 14, 10:37 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > On May 13, 9:38 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> Marshall wrote: > >>> On May 13, 8:01 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >>>> The thing escapes my understanding is why my opponents and the > >>>> "standard theorists" never want to admit we only have an intuitive > >>>> knowledge of the natural numbers. Why is that? > >>> Because it's wrong. > >>> 1+1=2 is not an intuition. > >> S0 + S0 = SS0 is also true in arithmetic modulo 2. So do the naturals > >> form the arithmetic modulo 2? > > > This question is merely a diversion from the discussion of whether > > "1+1=2" in an intuition or not, > > Be correct in arguing, Marshall. Take you own advice, Nam. > The discussion is why the > "standard theorists" "never want to admit we only have an > intuitive knowledge of the natural numbers", and you defended > them in saying that 1+1=2 is not an intuitive knowledge. And I > pointed out to you that if you can't make the distinction between > 1+1=2 in modulo arithmetics and in the naturals then the knowledge > of "1+1=2" is true in the naturals is only an intuitive knowledge > (i.e. not a precise knowledge). (Pointing out is not a diversion!) Who says we cannot make this distinction? Only an idiot would suggest so. Z mod 2 and N are obviously not the same. As I said, this line of argument is a waste of time. Marshall
From: Marshall on 15 May 2010 09:07 On May 14, 10:43 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > On May 13, 9:30 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> Marshall wrote: > >>> On May 13, 7:13 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >>>> ... the fact that nobody could have a single example of a _FOL_ > >>>> absolute (formula) truth. > >>> x=x > >> Is that formula true in the theory T = {(x=x) /\ ~(x=x)}? > > > The formula is true in every model of T. > > So an inconsistent system like T has a model? That does not follow, and is not true. Which you know; hence you are just wasting time again. > > In fact, the formula is true > > in every model. > > Every model of what? Every model, period. Marshall
From: Marshall on 15 May 2010 09:08
On May 14, 10:45 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > On May 13, 11:06 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> They didn't want to call me as a "crank" so they > >> labeled me "philosophical" and somehow that might have stayed in > >> people's minds. > > > For the record: you, Nam Nguyen, are a crank. > > Your record of course. Which include the knowledge that an inconsistent > would have a model! Liar. Marshall |