Torkel Franzen on truth
in [Logic]
|
From: george on 3 Jan 2008 17:43 On Jan 2, 5:54 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > The thread you renamed to 'tedious sledding [...]' and your crazed > attack of my perfectly sensible distinctions regarding provability and > semantics as opposed to your latest mood swings on that subject. This is still not putting up or shutting up, but obviously I have a preference between the two.
From: george on 3 Jan 2008 17:53 On Jan 2, 6:25 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > That ZFC does not have unrestricted > comprehension does not contradict > that the formulas posted by the poster >G. Frege and some other people were correct It does so too. > - are theorems of ZFC - They INCLUDED TERMS which ZFC *does*NOT*construct*. They were as such not even grammatical within the context of ZFC. > and were not claimed to be definitions. Which is of course utter bullshit -- EVERY time you write a sentence (theorem or otherwise), EVERY closed term in it is a definition of its referent. > > > But what makes it egregious is that he was, in his usually charming > > > way, storming in tell everybody else that they're wrong (they > > > weren't), and even breathing fire about getting the definition wrong > > > when it wasn't even a DEFINITION that was at stake. The definition of the empty set WAS at stake in that thread. I am not going to belabor the point vs. anyone who chooses to deny this; anybody whose respect I care to care about will be able to see it for himself. > Right. Just as you left my quote there intact, no one (barring any > exception I don't recall) claimed to be giving a DEFINITION, No one NEEDS to be CLAIMING to be GIVING a definition IN ORDER to be RELYING on one! Just because you are not CLAIMING to be giving a definition does NOT mean "your definition is wrong -- here is the right one" is unAVAILABLE as a criticism! > and their > formulas (not including the original one that people were responding > to) were correct No, they weren't. > and you, as usual, made a bloody foaming fool of > yourself. In your ignorant opinion. Clue: quality is more important than quantity here. The relevant outcome is not going to be determined by how MANY people think I am being more foolish than you are. Knowledge is republican, not democratic.
From: george on 3 Jan 2008 17:55 On Jan 2, 5:54 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > The thread you renamed to 'tedious sledding [...]' Lying as usual. The argument in that first encounter was about the existence of "logical axioms", which I deprecated in favor of inference rules. I was making the point that the usual inference rules for the quantifier in 1st-order logic have semantic content. You were claiming that axioms don't have semantic content, but my position then does not contradict my position now: EVEN THEN, I was insisting that the things with semantic content were inference rules AND NOT axioms.
From: MoeBlee on 3 Jan 2008 17:58 On Jan 3, 2:43 pm, george <gree...(a)cs.unc.edu> wrote: > On Jan 2, 5:54 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > The thread you renamed to 'tedious sledding [...]' and your crazed > > attack of my perfectly sensible distinctions regarding provability and > > semantics as opposed to your latest mood swings on that subject. > > This is still not putting up or shutting up, > but obviously I have a preference between the two. Anyone interested, including you, can just read your sustained rants in that thread I mentioned compared with your sustained rants in the last couple of months on the subject. And, since sorting through your garbage is not something I enjoy doing, my preference is to let it stand there. MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 3 Jan 2008 18:07
On Jan 3, 2:53 pm, george <gree...(a)cs.unc.edu> wrote: > On Jan 2, 6:25 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > That ZFC does not have unrestricted > > comprehension does not contradict > > that the formulas posted by the poster > >G. Frege and some other people were correct > > It does so too. Then show a contradiction. > > - are theorems of ZFC - > > They INCLUDED TERMS which ZFC *does*NOT*construct*. > They were as such not even grammatical within the context of ZFC. Quite ordinary and commonly understood usage of set abstraction notation easily allows such terms. > > and were not claimed to be definitions. > > Which is of course utter bullshit -- EVERY time you write > a sentence (theorem or otherwise), EVERY closed term > in it is a definition of its referent. Bizarre notion in context of ordinary mathematical logic and set theory. > > > > But what makes it egregious is that he was, in his usually charming > > > > way, storming in tell everybody else that they're wrong (they > > > > weren't), and even breathing fire about getting the definition wrong > > > > when it wasn't even a DEFINITION that was at stake. > > The definition of the empty set WAS at stake in that thread. You only insist. > I am not going to belabor the point vs. anyone who chooses > to deny this; anybody whose respect I care to care about > will be able to see it for himself. Who cares who you respect? > > Right. Just as you left my quote there intact, no one (barring any > > exception I don't recall) claimed to be giving a DEFINITION, > > No one NEEDS to be CLAIMING to be GIVING a definition IN ORDER > to be RELYING on one! And none of the people such as the poster G. Frege (i.e., the people who came in to correct the original poster who was mixed up) were seen to be relying on an incorrect definition. > Just because you are not CLAIMING to be > giving a definition does NOT mean "your definition is wrong -- here is > the right one" is unAVAILABLE as a criticism! I didn't say such a thing is unavailable as a criticism. Meanwhile, the remarks by such people as G. Frege were correct. > > and their > > formulas (not including the original one that people were responding > > to) were correct > > No, they weren't. > > and you, as usual, made a bloody foaming fool of > > yourself. > > In your ignorant opinion. > > Clue: quality is more important than quantity here. > The relevant outcome is not going to be determined by > how MANY people think I am being more foolish than you are. > Knowledge is republican, not democratic. I never argued that correctness in the matter we are discussing now is determined by poll. MoeBlee |