Torkel Franzen on truth
in [Logic]
|
From: george on 9 Jan 2008 13:17 On Jan 8, 4:40 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I'm not obsessed with authors. Of course you are. > It's just > that this subject is mainly disseminated through lectures and > writings, and primarily, for those who are not gathered in a single > lecture series, widely used textbooks provide the most common basis > for definitions. That is just out of touch with reality. If somebody is asking YOU what a term means then YOU are the ONLY basis for a definition. If you choose to defer to "widely used textbooks" then that is YOUR choice. > I was asked what a term "means". I take that to be No, really, you don't. > a request for what > the term means to the people who use it as a technical term in the > subject. So my best answer is to say what I know about how various > authors use the term. Unless you are actually going to evaluate/rank the competing uses, you are not contributing.
From: MoeBlee on 9 Jan 2008 13:21 On Jan 9, 10:14 am, george <gree...(a)cs.unc.edu> wrote: > On Jan 8, 4:40 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Moreover, do you at least see how what you're saying now about "you > > can do anything you want as long as consistent" goes against the grain > > of your continual harping ('harping' is putting nicely) that people > > are NOT within intellectual prerogative to go against the > > "paradigm" (as you've called it) and the presumed definitions? > > You have this exactly backwards. > *I* am going against the presumed definition in this case. No, you have it backwards that I have it backwards. Read what I wrote again. I AM recognizing that you are challenging a presumed definition. MoeBlee
From: george on 9 Jan 2008 17:28 > > On Jan 8, 4:40 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Moreover, do you at least see how what you're saying now about "you > > > can do anything you want as long as consistent" goes against the grain > > > of your continual harping ('harping' is putting nicely) that people > > > are NOT within intellectual prerogative to go against the > > > "paradigm" (as you've called it) and the presumed definitions? > > > You have this exactly backwards. > > *I* am going against the presumed definition in this case. > > No, you have it backwards that I have it backwards. Read what I wrote > again. I AM recognizing that you are challenging a presumed > definition. Just because I can have it both ways doesn't mean that you can. You have to approve of ONE or the other of these two sides that you idiotically allege me to be inconsistently taking. PLEASE PICK one. In any case, your whining about my "continual harping" in order to win a pissing contest here is not going to score any points. You have no idea who the judges/audience are. I have been here for over 20 years. Challenging at least a few pet peeved definitions is something I have been doing for most of that time. Obviously I therefore cannot believe that people cannot challenge these definitions. If you say I am proving, continually, that I believe that, then you simply don't know what is going on.
From: george on 9 Jan 2008 17:32 > > On Jan 8, 4:40 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm not obsessed with authors. > > > Of course you are. > > Fatuous. It's exemplified by your behavior. It's factually confirmed. Whether it is or isn't also "fatuous" is entirely moot, if it's factual. > > > It's just > > > that this subject is mainly disseminated through lectures and > > > writings, and primarily, for those who are not gathered in a single > > > lecture series, widely used textbooks provide > > > the most common basis > > > for definitions. Now THAT'S fatuous. BECAUSE it's factual. It's about as fatuous as responding to "what is your name?" with "The sky is blue." OF COURSE it is true that the textbooks say what they say. OF COURSE it is also true that what they say is itself also true. But EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT ALREADY. Wherefore it is fatuous (to put it charitably) to BELABOR any of it. > > That is just out of touch with reality. > > > If somebody is asking YOU what a term means then > > YOU are the ONLY basis for a definition. If you choose > > to defer to "widely used textbooks" then that is YOUR choice. > > Oh, come on! No, dumbass, I will NOT come on: YOU come on. > The poster asked me what a term means. SO? There is such a thing as a stupid question. There is also such a thing as a question that overlooks something important or presumes something that, despite its conventionality, still NEEDS to be rejected. IF you are going to comment then YOU need to come on AND PAY ATTENTION to those sorts of things. > I took that to be a request It never matters what anybody is actually requesting. What matters is what they NEED.
From: george on 9 Jan 2008 17:53
On Jan 9, 1:02 am, herbzet <herb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The point of my question, such as it was, is that the first sense > of the definition reduces to Enderton's definition. You cut too much. Definition OF WHAT term? If the term was "axiomatization" then THE point, REGARDLESS of YOUR point, is that you don't GET to have questions about THAT definition until AFTER resolving the PRIOR question about the definition of the term "Theory". This is ESPECIALLY true when the question is YOUR question, the point being that the "arbitrary xor r.e.?" question IS ALREADY relevant for theories. Anytime anybody asks that question about anything else, you almost have to refer them back to the theory question FIRST. The resolution there IS likely to affect the resolution in your other realm. Of course "axioms" being a SUBrealm of "theory" in any case, the likelihood is maximized. |