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 5 Jun 2010 01:12 Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: > >> Whatever the reason you have when saying x=x "is not true" is a >> direct contradiction with Marshall's belief (if not with Aatu's >> and Jesse's as well), in the original challenge I brought up above >> about showing any "absolute (formula) truth". > > I see no contradiction with anything I've said. I guess we shall see. > > x=x is not a closed formula and so nothing from p. 19 of Shoenfield > applies to it. So Ax[x=x] isn't a logical axiom? > Unfortunately, Nam thinks > that the clause for non-equation atomic formulas (A is of the form > pa_1,...,a_n) applies for arbitrary formulas. Unfortunately Jesse just contradicted the fact that "among the binary predicate symbols must be the equality symbol =." (Shoenfield, pg. 14) and so x=x is just =(x,x) which is of the form pa_1,...,a_n Jesse just mentioned. > He completely ignores > the clause for, say, negation, which says that ~B is false in M iff B > is true in M. Unfortunately Jesse contradicted with the fact that: Nam wrote about that negation, on May 24th: > Jesse wasn't correct on what Shoenfield wrote on pg. 19, where > Schoenfield wrote: > "If A is ~B, then M(A) is H_~(M(B)) > where (on the same pg. 19) M(A) = T iff pM(M(a1), ..., M(an)) > and "(i.e., iff the n-tuple (M(a1), ..., M(an)) belongs to the > predicate pM". [where M here is a structure]. and that Jesse himself responded to my mentioning on the negation on May 25th: > You're absolutely right. I said he defined the truth value of ~ B as > H_~(B), when it should be H_~(M(B)). (Actually, what Nam writes as M > is a funky script A in my copy, but no matter.) > > Not that Nam will either understand or admit this. > Don't know much about me admitting anything here but I'll never understand why he border-lined dishonesty when he said "He _completely_ ignores the clause for, say, negation" when he and I had _actually_ talked about it!
From: Frederick Williams on 5 Jun 2010 04:48 "Jesse F. Hughes" wrote: > "Your knowledge is the power that promote good thought, how then can you have > good thought without powerful knowledge or how can you have powerful knowledge > without learning or how can you learn without a teacher and how can a teacher > teach if he or she has not learned the subject." --CA Alternative High School May I ask what you think the significance of your sig is? -- I can't go on, I'll go on.
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 5 Jun 2010 09:09 Frederick Williams <frederick.williams2(a)tesco.net> writes: > "Jesse F. Hughes" wrote: > >> "Your knowledge is the power that promote good thought, how then can you have >> good thought without powerful knowledge or how can you have powerful knowledge >> without learning or how can you learn without a teacher and how can a teacher >> teach if he or she has not learned the subject." --CA Alternative High School > > May I ask what you think the significance of your sig is? That's a pretty old one. I found it funny for the reason that it was newsworthy in the first place: an unaccredited school included such a poorly written, ungrammatical and badly punctuated passage in their advertising material. Some context can be found at http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-123331746.html. -- Jesse F. Hughes "Well, I don't claim to be an expert, in fact I am a fry cook with a national burger chain, but I have solved many differential and partial differential equations numerically." --C. Bond
From: herbzet on 5 Jun 2010 10:27 "Jesse F. Hughes" wrote: > Frederick Williams writes: > > "Jesse F. Hughes" wrote: > > > >> "Your knowledge is the power that promote good thought, how then can you have > >> good thought without powerful knowledge or how can you have powerful knowledge > >> without learning or how can you learn without a teacher and how can a teacher > >> teach if he or she has not learned the subject." --CA Alternative High School > > > > May I ask what you think the significance of your sig is? > > That's a pretty old one. I found it funny for the reason that it was > newsworthy in the first place: an unaccredited school included such > a poorly written, ungrammatical and badly punctuated passage in their > advertising material. > > Some context can be found at > http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-123331746.html. "Article: Teach your children good." LOL. > -- > Jesse F. Hughes > "Well, I don't claim to be an expert, in fact I am a fry cook with a > national burger chain, but I have solved many differential and partial > differential equations numerically." --C. Bond May I ask what you think the significance of *this* sig is, elitist swine? (Um, I assume it makes sense to say that one can solve differential and partial differential equations "numerically". Is the joke that it doesn't actually make sense to say that?) -- hz
From: Frederick Williams on 5 Jun 2010 11:01
"Jesse F. Hughes" wrote: > > Frederick Williams <frederick.williams2(a)tesco.net> writes: > > > "Jesse F. Hughes" wrote: > > > >> "Your knowledge is the power that promote good thought, how then can you have > >> good thought without powerful knowledge or how can you have powerful knowledge > >> without learning or how can you learn without a teacher and how can a teacher > >> teach if he or she has not learned the subject." --CA Alternative High School > > > > May I ask what you think the significance of your sig is? > > That's a pretty old one. I found it funny for the reason that it was > newsworthy in the first place: an unaccredited school included such > a poorly written, ungrammatical and badly punctuated passage in their > advertising material. I thought it was rather odd. > Some context can be found at > http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-123331746.html. We have problems with worthless colleges here too. Thanks. -- I can't go on, I'll go on. |