'When Are Relations Neither True Nor False?
in [Math]
|
From: Nam Nguyen on 27 Mar 2010 11:47 Marshall wrote: > On Mar 26, 8:57 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> Marshall wrote: >>> On Mar 26, 4:35 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>>> MoeBlee wrote: >>>>> On Mar 26, 4:16 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>>>>> MoeBlee wrote: >>>>>>> On Mar 26, 3:11 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>>>>>>> if you could demonstrate a truly absolute abstract truth in mathematical >>>>>>>> reasoning, I'd leave the forum never coming back. >>>>>>> Oh, sweet seduction, please don't tempt me so! >>>>>> Go ahead and demonstrate one, or prove any of my 4 principles is wrong. >>>>>> If you can. >>>>> Oh, Nam, how you make my heart all aflutter! >>>> Oh MoeBlee, how you fail time to time to technically show what I'd say >>>> about the foundation issues of FOL reasoning be wrong. >>> That Moe has failed to do so in a way that you can understand >>> is a failing, but it's not Moe's failing. >> Where did Moe successfully demonstrate, say, an absolute truth that >> I failed to understand, or my 4 principles are wrong and I couldn't >> understand his demonstration? > > You wouldn't be able to tell if he had. In other words your argument is full of subjective bluffing and idiotic babling and with no technical substance. > Your criteria for truth > require that a sentence be true even if we redefine the > terms in it. What is my criteria for truth of a sentence? Where in the thread did I myself stipulate such criteria for a FOL formula's being true? Or, _as usual_ you simply don't know what you're talking about? > Under that criterion, of course anything can mean > anything. In fact, I can completely agree with your "everything > is relative" claim by redefining "everything" to mean "something" > and "relative" to mean "absolute." > > >> Or you're just full of babbling words with no technical substance, >> as usual? [It seems like a habit of yours that when you couldn't >> technically counter your opponent's argument then you just call him >> a mad dog!] > > I have never called you a mad dog that I can recall. My > term for you is "talentless bufoon." So much more apropos. "A mad dog" is just an idiom expression. There's a saying like "To kill a dog just call it a mad dog". So your "talentless bufoon", here, is the same as "mad dog". But you missed my point: in argument here, Marshall has been "full of babbling words with no technical substance", like an *intellectual clown*.
From: Jim Burns on 27 Mar 2010 12:06 Nam Nguyen wrote: > Marshall wrote: >> On Mar 26, 8:57 pm, Nam Nguyen >> <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>> Or you're just full of babbling words with >>> no technical substance, as usual? [It seems >>> like a habit of yours that when you couldn't >>> technically counter your opponent's argument >>> then you just call him a mad dog!] >> >> I have never called you a mad dog that I can >> recall. My term for you is "talentless bufoon." >> So much more apropos. > > "A mad dog" is just an idiom expression. There's > a saying like "To kill a dog just call it a mad > dog". So your "talentless bufoon", here, is the > same as "mad dog". > > But you missed my point: in argument here, Marshall > has been "full of babbling words with no technical > substance", like an *intellectual clown*. So, are you calling Marshall a mad dog here? Apparently, you only object to that /sometimes/. Jim Burns
From: Nam Nguyen on 27 Mar 2010 12:15 Jim Burns wrote: > Nam Nguyen wrote: >> Marshall wrote: >>> On Mar 26, 8:57 pm, Nam Nguyen >>> <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >>>> Or you're just full of babbling words with >>>> no technical substance, as usual? [It seems >>>> like a habit of yours that when you couldn't >>>> technically counter your opponent's argument >>>> then you just call him a mad dog!] >>> >>> I have never called you a mad dog that I can >>> recall. My term for you is "talentless bufoon." >>> So much more apropos. >> >> "A mad dog" is just an idiom expression. There's >> a saying like "To kill a dog just call it a mad >> dog". So your "talentless bufoon", here, is the >> same as "mad dog". >> >> But you missed my point: in argument here, Marshall >> has been "full of babbling words with no technical >> substance", like an *intellectual clown*. > > So, are you calling Marshall a mad dog here? > Apparently, you only object to that /sometimes/. There are real mad dogs and there are real non-mad dogs. There difference is in the real symptoms they really do or do not exhibit. Naturally.
From: Daryl McCullough on 27 Mar 2010 12:46 Nam Nguyen says... > >Daryl McCullough wrote: >> [G(PA)] is a *relative* truth. It's true in the standard interpretation >> of the language of PA. > >So you've agreed "G(PA) can be arithmetically false"? It is false in nonstandard models of PA. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Jim Burns on 27 Mar 2010 13:08
Nam Nguyen wrote: > Jim Burns wrote: >> Nam Nguyen wrote: >>> Marshall wrote: >>>> On Mar 26, 8:57 pm, Nam Nguyen >>>> <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> >>>>> Or you're just full of babbling words with >>>>> no technical substance, as usual? [It seems >>>>> like a habit of yours that when you couldn't >>>>> technically counter your opponent's argument >>>>> then you just call him a mad dog!] >>>> >>>> I have never called you a mad dog that I can >>>> recall. My term for you is "talentless bufoon." >>>> So much more apropos. >>> >>> "A mad dog" is just an idiom expression. There's >>> a saying like "To kill a dog just call it a mad >>> dog". So your "talentless bufoon", here, is the >>> same as "mad dog". >>> >>> But you missed my point: in argument here, Marshall >>> has been "full of babbling words with no technical >>> substance", like an *intellectual clown*. >> >> So, are you calling Marshall a mad dog here? >> Apparently, you only object to that /sometimes/. > > There are real mad dogs and there are real non-mad dogs. > There difference is in the real symptoms they really do > or do not exhibit. Naturally. Please correct me if I misinterpret what you are saying: Marshall called you a talentless buffoon, and that was wrong, because you are not a talentless buffoon. You called Marshall an intellectual clown, and that was okay, because he is an intellectual clown. I'm a little disappointed, because I thought your argument went a little deeper, that it was an objection to shouting down unpopular views by burying them under a pile of nasty accusations. That would have made you a hypocrite, of course, for trying to do the very same thing to Marshall. So all this is just a difference of opinion as to whether you are a talentless buffoon, on the one hand, and Marshall is an intellectual clown, on the other? Then I guess it doesn't matter. Jim Burns |