'When Are Relations Neither True Nor False?
in [Math]
|
From: cwldoc on 26 Mar 2010 09:46 > Newberry <newberryxy(a)gmail.com> writes: > > On Mar 24, 9:34 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" > <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > > > >> Paradoxical in what sense? > > > > Does not everybody know what the paradox of > material implication is? > > I'm just a simple housewife (with somewhat hairy > legs). Why not tell > me what you mean by "the paradox of material > implication" and why it's > a paradox? > > -- > Jesse F. Hughes > "The future is a fascinating thing, and so is > history. And you people > are a fascinating part of history, for those in the > future." > -- James S. Harris is > -- James S. Harris is fascinating, too Wait a minute... does that mean that the "hairy housewife" is really a dude?
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 26 Mar 2010 14:06 cwldoc <cwldoc(a)aol.com> writes: >> Newberry <newberryxy(a)gmail.com> writes: >> > On Mar 24, 9:34 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" >> <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >> > >> >> Paradoxical in what sense? >> > >> > Does not everybody know what the paradox of >> material implication is? >> >> I'm just a simple housewife (with somewhat hairy >> legs). Why not tell >> me what you mean by "the paradox of material >> implication" and why it's >> a paradox? >> >> -- >> Jesse F. Hughes >> "The future is a fascinating thing, and so is >> history. And you people >> are a fascinating part of history, for those in the >> future." >> -- James S. Harris is >> -- James S. Harris is fascinating, too > > Wait a minute... does that mean that the "hairy housewife" is really > a dude? On the internet, no one really knows. Except, maybe, David Ullrich, who once had an office across the hall from me. Are you coming on to me, big boy? -- "Do you know why I'm tall?" "Why?" "Because I eat apples." "Do you know why I'm short?" "Why?" "Because I'm a kid." --Quincy P. Hughes (age almost 4) bests his father.
From: Daryl McCullough on 26 Mar 2010 14:18 Nam Nguyen says... >Glad that you and I agree "Truth is relative to an interpretation". I think anyone who has studied classical logic would agree with that. >Are you with me, then, natural numbers and arithmetic truths are >_just relativistic_ notions (abstractions)? Naturals are a particular interpretation of the theory PA. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Nam Nguyen on 26 Mar 2010 14:22 Daryl McCullough wrote: > Nam Nguyen says... > >> Glad that you and I agree "Truth is relative to an interpretation". > > I think anyone who has studied classical logic would agree with that. > >> Are you with me, then, natural numbers and arithmetic truths are >> _just relativistic_ notions (abstractions)? > > Naturals are a particular interpretation of the theory PA. Then, are arithmetic truths are about them relative, subjective, which is my question?
From: Alan Smaill on 26 Mar 2010 14:56
Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: > Alan Smaill wrote: >> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: >> >>> The ultimate logic is one which is relativistic. >> >> Is that an absolute truth, then? >> >> I know, it's an old ploy, but your position just begs the question. >> > > No. It's relative to what we, mortal beings, are entitled to know and to > what existence realm we happen to be in. But that's just your subjective opinion of the situation, isn't it? > A lone man is walking in a road that seems to stretch to nowhere. Is the > evening lonely, or is that just a lonely feeling in the evening? The man is very happy. -- Alan Smaill email: A.Smaill at ed.ac.uk |