'When Are Relations Neither True Nor False?
in [Math]
|
From: Marshall on 27 Mar 2010 18:53 On Mar 27, 11:03 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > >> That Moe has failed to do so in a way that you can > >> understand is a failing, but it's not Moe's failing. > > Since that's the lone sentence in that post (meaning he didn't even > have any thing to back up what he posted), it's a pile of accusation > (my alleged "stupidity") he made. > > would that be a "deeper" argument you're looking for? For me, I do > have reason to call him an unintellectual clown. And Iirc, this > isn't the first time he has exhibited such character. > > > That would have made you a hypocrite, of course, > > for trying to do the very same thing to Marshall. > > As I've justed mentioned, I do have reasons and I've presented > the reason (and I could present more reasons if you would like). > > Your alluding me as a hypocrite is *not* warranted! If you want > to defend him you should look at his conversations with me in this > thread (if not in other threads as well) more closely. If you look at our past conversations, you'll see me waste lots of my time trying to engage Nam in technical issues, which he responds to with vapid posturing and sophomoric rhetoric. That's why I don't waste my time presenting him with actual technical arguments any more; it's a waste of time. Pointing out that he is a talentless buffoon is fun, though. Marshall
From: Nam Nguyen on 27 Mar 2010 19:07 Jim Burns wrote: > Nam Nguyen wrote: > >> There's reason why the word "cranks" has a >> different meaning than "standard mathematicians, >> logicians" and I believe the difference is genuine. >> >> It's just that the later somehow believe that >> they're aways invincible in their methods of >> reasoning and they'd would slam the door shut on >> a slightest hint their methods could be wrong. > > It may be that you and I are applying the labels > "cranks" and "standard mathematicians" to different > people. "Slamming the door shut" is a very good > way to describe crankish behavior, in my experience. > And if "standard" behavior (by which I mean behavior > of persons widely respected and listened to, if > not necessarily agreed with) is "slamming the door > shut", where did all the non-standard (in its usual > sense) analysis come from? > > However, because you complain about such behavior > in others, I assume you do not engage in it yourself. > > I think it would be very useful to me in understanding > what you are trying to accomplish if you were > to give a summary of the best arguments AGAINST your > positions. > > Fortunately, since you do not "slam the door > shut", this should be pretty easy for you to do. I do appreciate the opportunity and I will constructively respond to your request as soon as I could. Regards, -Nam Nguyen > > Thanks. > Jim Burns > >> >> They know the 1-many problem and yet somehow they >> could convince themselves they'd fully understand >> the infinite complexity of the natural numbers. >> >> Aren't there any conservative, objective, and rational >> mathematicians/logicians left in these forums to >> further discussions about the current state of FOL >> reasoning?
From: Newberry on 28 Mar 2010 00:46 On Mar 27, 4:59 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > Newberry says... > > > > >On Mar 26, 3:49=A0am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > >wrote: > >> The Liar sentence is not *expressible* in any standard mathematical > >> theory (PA or ZFC). So you don't have to do anything to keep the Liar > >> from spoiling the consistency of those languages. > > >Why you think you have to tell me that I do not know. If you lool a > >few lines above you will see that I was talking about the Liar paradox > >in the natural language. > > So your theory of truth gaps is only for natural language? No. > So you > agree that formal languages such as arithmetic don't require any > truth gaps? No. > > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY
From: Newberry on 28 Mar 2010 00:49 On Mar 27, 6:26 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > Newberry <newberr...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > On Mar 26, 3:50 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > >> Newberry <newberr...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> > On Mar 25, 3:49 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > >> > wrote: > >> >> Newberry says... > > >> >> >Tarski's theorem does not apply to formal systems with gaps. I think > >> >> >it is preferable. > > >> >> If you the way you express Tarski's theorem is like this, then truth > >> >> gaps don't change anything: > > >> >> There is no formula T(x) such that if x is a Godel code of a true > >> >> sentence, then T(x) is true, and otherwise, ~T(x) is true. > > >> >> Anyway, *why* is it preferable to have a formal system for which Tarki's > >> >> theorem does not apply? Preferable for what purpose? > > >> > If truth is expressible then truth can be equivalent to provabilty. > > >> So, you'd like to redefine truth (so that vacuously *true* statements > >> aren't true) and also redefine provability (so trivially provable > >> statements aren't provable) in such a way that truth is equivalent to > >> provability. > > >> Then what have you accomplished? Hell, I can do that simply by > >> requiring that nothing is true and nothing is provable. My "fix" is > >> better than yours, insofar as we can see that it actually "works". > > > My theory has some significant advantages over yours. I can go to a > > grocery store and count how many tomatoes and bananas I have picked. > > If I have picked 2 small tomatoes and three large tomatoes my theory > > can prove that I have 5 tomatoes. Also at the checkout counter I can > > calculate the total price. Can your theory do that? > > No. You're right. The classical theory of arithmetic I thought that we were talking about your theory where "nothing is true and nothing is provable." > is incapable of > proving that 2 + 3 = 5. > > I see now that your theory is superior and will alter my brain > accordingly. > > (Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to see > a disadvantage in classical arithmetic that I simply don't see. Why > not explain your point?) > > -- > Jesse F. Hughes > > "I post for many reasons [...] and there's no reason to think that > I'll stop." -- James S. Harris- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Newberry on 28 Mar 2010 00:57
On Mar 27, 4:56 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > Newberry says... > > >L: ~T(L) > > >If v(L) = ~(T v F) then there is no contradiction. L is not true. > > But *if* T is a truth predicate, then "L is not true" is formalized > by the statement ~T(L). > > >The argument usually goes "but that is what L says." But L does not > >say anything. > > It says "L is not true". > > So your proposed resolution is complete nonsense. It contains the string "L is not true", but it does not "say" that L is not true because it is meaningless. Some prefer to say that it does not express any proposition. Here is some reading for you. http://www.columbia.edu/~hg17/gaifman6.pdf |