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: Marshall on 31 May 2010 20:09 On May 31, 3:20 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > On May 31, 1:21 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > >> I already defended my position with Tarski's definition via factual > >> set membership (viz a viz empty and non-empty predicates). > > > Factual set membership?! But you're still claiming that every > > formula in an empty model is false, even when the formula > > says that factual set membership shows a predicate is empty. > > If this is where you got confused and not understand my explanation > then that's easy to fix. In the post about "A df= (B and C)", May 29th, > I had: > > > Note in FOL the individuals of an U and U itself are off-limit > > to FOL expressibility: in the sense that they're of the kind > > of unformalized entities that we can only have a priori and > > that if we try to formalize them what we've formalized just > > aren't they. Iow, B is _not_ FOL expression. The above paragraph doesn't say anything about set membership, or address my point in any way. If you had rambled for a few sentences about new Fall TV schedule, it couldn't have been any less responsive. If you don't want to answer the question, fine, but why would you waste your time and mine changing the subject? I'm beginning to think your entire usenet persona is an elaborate joke. Marshall
From: Nam Nguyen on 31 May 2010 23:27 Marshall wrote: > On May 31, 3:20 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> Marshall wrote: >>> Factual set membership?! But you're still claiming that every >>> formula in an empty model is false, even when the formula >>> says that factual set membership shows a predicate is empty. >> If this is where you got confused and not understand my explanation >> then that's easy to fix. In the post about "A df= (B and C)", May 29th, >> I had: >> >> > Note in FOL the individuals of an U and U itself are off-limit >> > to FOL expressibility: in the sense that they're of the kind >> > of unformalized entities that we can only have a priori and >> > that if we try to formalize them what we've formalized just >> > aren't they. Iow, B is _not_ FOL expression. > > The above paragraph doesn't say anything about set membership, > or address my point in any way. It does. For some odd, unexplained reasons you were just unable to see it. You said "even when the formula says ....". My paragraph says when when U = {} , B is false and hence *any formula* is model theoretically false by definition. As for your complaint "the above paragraph doesn't say anything about set membership", the very next paragraph which says: > Would you see in now? It doesn't matter whether or not F is > _syntactically_ tautologous or contradictory, the meta statement > A, by definition of structure, will also depend on B. And if B is > false by virtual of the factual U's being empty then A is false. Didn't you see the phrase "U's being empty" there? Please, Marshall: for your reputation sake, don't parade your idiotic rambling about somebody else's "usenet persona" as you did below when you're either incapable to read a single short post for relevant information next to each other, or so incompetent to understand the word "U's being empty" does mean _something_ "about set membership"! > If you don't want to answer the question, fine, but why > would you waste your time and mine changing the subject? > I'm beginning to think your entire usenet persona is an > elaborate joke. Look who's talking!
From: Nam Nguyen on 31 May 2010 23:36 Marshall wrote: >> Enough of talking Marshall. If you say I'm technically wrong I'm >> sure you could technically explain to me and others in a concise manner. > > Done. Like where?
From: Marshall on 1 Jun 2010 00:40 On May 31, 8:27 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > On May 31, 3:20 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> Marshall wrote: > >>> Factual set membership?! But you're still claiming that every > >>> formula in an empty model is false, even when the formula > >>> says that factual set membership shows a predicate is empty. > >> If this is where you got confused and not understand my explanation > >> then that's easy to fix. In the post about "A df= (B and C)", May 29th, > >> I had: > > >> > Note in FOL the individuals of an U and U itself are off-limit > >> > to FOL expressibility: in the sense that they're of the kind > >> > of unformalized entities that we can only have a priori and > >> > that if we try to formalize them what we've formalized just > >> > aren't they. Iow, B is _not_ FOL expression. > > > The above paragraph doesn't say anything about set membership, > > or address my point in any way. > > It does. OK, it says *something* about set membership, but it doesn't address the relevant issue about set membership. I'll just quote someone else who said it plainly and succinctly: > Your claim is that for a model with an empty universe > There is no x such that x is blue > is false. > > No matter how you get to it, the fact remains > that this claim is absurd. > > - William Hughes Your claim is factually incorrect, false, wrong, absurd. I wonder why you think a logic that calls some true sentences false is a useful logic. Maybe it's just that you are unable to comprehend that some things are true. For example, you seem unclear on whether you are a potato chip or not. Let me put your mind at rest on that matter: you are not. Marshall
From: Nam Nguyen on 1 Jun 2010 01:08
Marshall wrote: > On May 31, 8:27 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> Marshall wrote: >>> On May 31, 3:20 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>>> Marshall wrote: >>>>> Factual set membership?! But you're still claiming that every >>>>> formula in an empty model is false, even when the formula >>>>> says that factual set membership shows a predicate is empty. >>>> If this is where you got confused and not understand my explanation >>>> then that's easy to fix. In the post about "A df= (B and C)", May 29th, >>>> I had: >>>> > Note in FOL the individuals of an U and U itself are off-limit >>>> > to FOL expressibility: in the sense that they're of the kind >>>> > of unformalized entities that we can only have a priori and >>>> > that if we try to formalize them what we've formalized just >>>> > aren't they. Iow, B is _not_ FOL expression. >>> The above paragraph doesn't say anything about set membership, >>> or address my point in any way. >> It does. > > OK, it says *something* about set membership, but it doesn't > address the relevant issue about set membership. > > I'll just quote someone else who said it plainly and succinctly: > >> Your claim is that for a model with an empty universe >> There is no x such that x is blue >> is false. >> >> No matter how you get to it, the fact remains >> that this claim is absurd. >> >> - William Hughes > > Your claim is factually incorrect, false, wrong, absurd. Isn't he the one who uttered this idiotic rambling? > From now on a sentence is true iff I say it is true. > The question is who is to be master, that is all. I think you both are more obsessed with being a "master" than with logical reasoning. > > I wonder why you think a logic that calls some true > sentences false is a useful logic. Because you haven't been able to _technically & successfully_ demonstrate a formula truth is absolute. > Maybe it's just > that you are unable to comprehend that some things > are true. For example, you seem unclear on whether > you are a potato chip or not. Suppose someone says to you "Marshall you're not couch potato", would you think they "mean" you aren't a couch or aren't a potato? Abstraction and context, you should remember Marshall! > > Let me put your mind at rest on that matter: you are not. Let me remind you: we're talking about mathematical abstraction. |