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: J. Clarke on 15 May 2010 15:29 On 5/15/2010 11:39 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote: > 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. Have you ever taken an abstract algebra course? If not you might want to. After you have completed it you should understand how vacuous your whole line of argument is.
From: Nam Nguyen on 15 May 2010 21:20 Marshall wrote: > 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. So what you say here is basically "if _that_ T Nam cited _were_ consistent then x=x _would be_ true", which is trivial and which nobody claimed otherwise. But a) that is NOT what you had said! and b) that still doesn't make your belief the truth of x=x is absolute!
From: Nam Nguyen on 15 May 2010 21:23 Nam Nguyen wrote: > Marshall wrote: >> 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. > > So what you say here is basically "if _that_ T Nam cited _were_ consistent > then x=x _would be_ true", which is trivial and which nobody claimed > otherwise. > > But a) that is NOT what you had said! and b) that still doesn't make > your belief the truth of x=x is absolute! So you still have failed to cite an example of an absolute truth!
From: Marshall on 15 May 2010 23:39 On May 15, 6:20 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > 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. > > So what you say here is basically "if _that_ T Nam cited _were_ consistent > then x=x _would be_ true" No, that is not what I said. > But a) that is NOT what you had said! Ah! We agree on this at least. and b) that still doesn't make your belief the truth of x=x is absolute! It's true in all models. Marshall
From: Nam Nguyen on 16 May 2010 02:42
Marshall wrote: > > It's true in all models. The question was whether or not x=x true or false in the inconsistent theory T = {(x=x) /\ ~(x=x)}? Your utterance above is NOT an answer (i.e. irrelevant) to the question. |