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 7 Jun 2010 23:02 Nam Nguyen wrote: > Marshall wrote: >> On Jun 7, 7:36 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>> Marshall wrote: >>>> On Jun 6, 8:30 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >>>>> Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> Prolly a bad habit in a forum that's so oriented on FOL. >>>>> I don't know whether it's a bad habit or not, but Nam claims to be >>>>> sticking closely to Shoenfield's presentation, and in that text, the >>>>> author treats the two formulas differently. >>>> Right. >>> Of course Shoenfield did treat the 2 formulas differently: he mentioned >>> 1 kind on pg. 19 but not the other kind. But how does that have anything >>> to bear on the arguments here? Specifically, how does such observation >>> help you to prove there's no context in FOL in which x=x (or even >>> Ax[x=x]) >>> is false? >> >> See any of the previous hundreds of messages pointing out how >> completely untenable your position is. My favorite was Phil Carmody's: >> >> "I always try skip past your long drawn-out threads, and have never >> spend enough time to ascertain whether you are a loon or not. I think >> finally I have the evidence that you really don't have a clue what >> you're talking about.... *PLONK*." > > And you call that _your_ _technical_ refutes? So in the end Marshall and few others are wrong in saying there's there's no context in FOL in which x=x (Ax[x=x]) is false.
From: Marshall on 7 Jun 2010 23:05 On Jun 7, 8:02 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > So in the end Marshall and few others are wrong in saying there's > there's no context in FOL in which x=x (Ax[x=x]) is false. A "few" others? You have been the butt of near-universal ridicule. Only the tireless crusader known as Transfer Principle has said anything in your defense, and he's a cheap date. Basically, EVERYONE disagrees with you. Marshall
From: Nam Nguyen on 7 Jun 2010 23:47 Marshall wrote: > On Jun 7, 8:02 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> So in the end Marshall and few others are wrong in saying there's >> there's no context in FOL in which x=x (Ax[x=x]) is false. > > A "few" others? You have been the butt of near-universal ridicule. > Only the tireless crusader known as Transfer Principle has said > anything in your defense, and he's a cheap date. Come on Marshall. You couldn't technically support your refute then just accept it, or at least keep silent. Your idiotic calling _somebody else_ a "cheap date" to cover your incompetence is very ... very pathetic! > > Basically, EVERYONE disagrees with you. I don't know for fact if by now _everybody_ but you agrees or disagrees with me. I only know at least you do disagree and _you could NOT support your position_. Bye.
From: Daryl McCullough on 8 Jun 2010 06:29 Nam Nguyen says... >Of course Shoenfield did treat the 2 formulas differently: he mentioned >1 kind on pg. 19 but not the other kind. But how does that have anything >to bear on the arguments here? Specifically, how does such observation >help you to prove there's no context in FOL in which x=x (or even Ax[x=x]) >is false? Because (Ax x=x) is true in every model. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Marshall on 8 Jun 2010 09:56
On Jun 7, 8:47 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > > Basically, EVERYONE disagrees with you. > > I don't know for fact if by now _everybody_ but you agrees or > disagrees with me. I guess we can add "universal disagreement" to the list of things Nam doesn't recognize about a conversation. > I only know at least you do disagree and > _you could NOT support your position_. I supported it fine. I just wasn't able to convince this one particular talentless buffoon. Marshall |