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: Jesse F. Hughes on 15 May 2010 09:11 Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: > 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! I'd say that you're an odd crank. Better read than most, but bringing your own idiosyncratic filter so that you never really understand what the author's saying when it disagrees with your pet viewpoint. Your ideas are not as wacko as AP's, say, but they're not sensible either. Note: I don't intend to defend what I write here. I discovered a long time ago that I don't care to argue with you. Keep your odd notions about naturals and intuition. Proudly proclaim the "end of an era" because of your powerful and irrefutable arguments! Be a legend in your own mind! What do I care? I just thought you should know that *some* folk don't regard you as "philosophical". Rather, you're a crank. -- "Of all the sayings in the world The one to see you through Is, Never trouble trouble Till trouble troubles you." --- Mother Goose
From: Nam Nguyen on 15 May 2010 11:24 Marshall wrote: > 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. Prove to everyone how you, Marshall, could discern 1+1=2 in arithmetic modulo 2 from 1+1=2 in arithmetic of the naturals, from just 1+1=2 _ALONE_ ? Only an idiot would believe there's such proof. > > As I said, this line of argument is a waste of time. Your line that 1+1=2 _alone_ could make the distinction is.
From: Nam Nguyen on 15 May 2010 11:31 Marshall wrote: > 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. I asked >>> Is that formula true in the theory T = {(x=x) /\ ~(x=x)}? And you answered: >> The formula is true in every model of T. [Note your "in every model of T". Note also my "would have a model".] Looks like you're a liar here.
From: Nam Nguyen on 15 May 2010 11:39 Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: > >> 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! > > I'd say that you're an odd crank. Better read than most, but bringing > your own idiosyncratic filter so that you never really understand what > the author's saying when it disagrees with your pet viewpoint. Your > ideas are not as wacko as AP's, say, but they're not sensible either. > > Note: I don't intend to defend what I write here. I discovered a long > time ago that I don't care to argue with you. Keep your odd notions > about naturals and intuition. Proudly proclaim the "end of an era" > because of your powerful and irrefutable arguments! Be a legend in > your own mind! > > What do I care? > > I just thought you should know that *some* folk don't regard you as > "philosophical". Rather, you're a crank. If you and others just act in the manner on an Inquisitor, labeling people as a crank when you don't have valid foundation logic reasons to refute ideas or statements, why should I care about what you say about me being a crank, odd crank, or what not. If I say something then I just say it so that some others might be listening. That's all.
From: Marshall on 15 May 2010 14:34
On May 15, 8:31 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > 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. > > I asked > > >>> Is that formula true in the theory T = {(x=x) /\ ~(x=x)}? > > And you answered: > > >> The formula is true in every model of T. > > [Note your "in every model of T". Note also my "would have a model".] For a guy who prattles on endlessly about first order logic, you seem unaware that forall M such that M is a model of T, x=x is true in M does not imply that there exists such an M. Marshall |