Torkel Franzen on truth
in [Logic]
|
From: herbzet on 21 Dec 2007 19:58 herbzet wrote: > [herb thinks George thinks] interpreting the axioms in > structures which falsify (one or more of) them doesn't count -- > axioms are always taken as true regardless of how they are > interpreted; interpretation is perhaps I should say "supererogatory"! :-) -- hz
From: Daryl McCullough on 21 Dec 2007 20:22 Newberry says... >> >c) We are programmed as a heuristic learning algorithm >> >> I would say that we *have* heuristic learning algorithms. >> I wouldn't say that we *are* those algorithms, or that we >> were *programmed* (unless you want to call natural selection >> a form of programming). >> >> >d) Mathematics is at least partially an empirical science >> >> Yes. >> >> >Is this a fair characterization of your position? >> >> Pretty good. > >I think that c) and d) are absurd. Oh, well. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Newberry on 22 Dec 2007 00:11 On Dec 21, 1:03 am, Peter_Smith <ps...(a)cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 21 Dec, 00:02, george <gree...(a)cs.unc.edu> wrote: > > > What assigns meanings to the wffs of the system is DESIGNATING > > SOME OF THEM AS AXIOMS. > > Really? Well that sounds like magic to me. So what assigns meaning to the wffs? > If I tell you that "mae glo yn du" is true in Welsh [heck, hope I've > remembered that right], you don't thereby get to know what it means. > Telling you the same about some other Welsh sentences won't help > either. > > Telling you that in my fave axiomatized system "Fa" is an axiom (or is > an axiom and true), you don't thereby get to know what it means. > Telling you the same about some other sentences of the system won't > help either.
From: george on 22 Dec 2007 12:17 On Dec 20, 8:19 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I just let go by uncontested thousands of words of yours, some of them > HILARIOUSLY ill-conceived (I just love your 0 = {x | Ay ~yex}, which > you posted to CORRECT a bunch of people who had ALREADY CORRECTLY > observed various equations with 0 !!!) That was simply a mistake. Everybody (including you) excused it as such UNTIL NOW. You are lapsing. You had it right the first time when you just let it go by. And there was not any "already correctly" going on in that context. Nam had said one thing wrong and FF had (as usual) corrected it INcorrectly. > and also intellectually > hypocritical (the line you're arguing about semantics and axioms > lately is the EXACT NEGATION of the line you argued, rather by > spraying your mouth-foam in my face, when we first exchanged posts), Put up or shut up. I do not go around posting undocumented lies about people. Since you now appear to be doing exactly that, I will be content for us to rmain enemies. > since I learned a while ago that not only is there no point trying to > get through to you but doing so is an ESPECIALLY unpleasant endeavor. I certainly don't mind people who are more ignorant than I am "giving up" on trying to persuade me to agree with their errors. I do, however, mind people lying about me or claiming that I said X without being able to back it up.
From: george on 22 Dec 2007 12:30
On Dec 21, 8:07 am, G. Frege <nomail(a)invalid> wrote: > Wait a second. Aren't those axioms /true/ only when /interpreted/ > (i.e. in a model)? Hence isn't it the /interpretation/ that assigns > truth to an axiom? NO, DUMBASS. It is the designation of an axiom AS an axiom that assigns PROVABILITY to the axiom. Structures and interpretations don't have to be invoked AT ALL. THAT is the point. IF they are then truth and provability have to be DISTINGUISHED, but the whole point is that the whole structural/semantic piece IS SHAVABLE WITH OCCAM'S RAZOR. It does NOT have to be ackonowledged AT ALL. |