'When Are Relations Neither True Nor False?
in [Math]
|
From: Nam Nguyen on 6 Mar 2010 10:10 Nam Nguyen wrote: > [And in this post this isn't the only time your _ignoring_ could be > noticed!] > I of course meant "in this thread".
From: David Bernier on 6 Mar 2010 10:32 Nam Nguyen wrote: > Aatu Koskensilta wrote: >> Marshall <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> writes: >> >>> For me, Nam has mostly moved into the same category as AP. >> >> Come now, even if you don't find Nam's posts worth reading comparing him >> to Archimedes Plutonium is surely excessively harsh. >> > > Thanks. But it's ok Aatu. I've been"blasted" by both the "orthodox" and > the "crank" for years; nothing is new. > > It's hard to be in a 3rd party isn't it? In the past one "crank" alluded > that I wasn't "liberal"/"open-minded" enough in my critique of the current > regime of reasoning, and recently AP "lumped" me together with the > "standard theorists". [...] I respectfully disagree with your view that mathematicians should be concerned with what Branson (who, it seems, debated "denotation" or something with Russell) thought, when math. questions are what's being discussed. I think you and I are in a stalemate position here on the point above. I offer to make peace, in the following form: That you and I agree to disagree on Branson vs Russell, when limited to math. questions. David
From: Nam Nguyen on 6 Mar 2010 10:36 David Bernier wrote: > Nam Nguyen wrote: >> Aatu Koskensilta wrote: >>> Marshall <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> For me, Nam has mostly moved into the same category as AP. >>> >>> Come now, even if you don't find Nam's posts worth reading comparing him >>> to Archimedes Plutonium is surely excessively harsh. >>> >> >> Thanks. But it's ok Aatu. I've been"blasted" by both the "orthodox" and >> the "crank" for years; nothing is new. >> >> It's hard to be in a 3rd party isn't it? In the past one "crank" alluded >> that I wasn't "liberal"/"open-minded" enough in my critique of the >> current >> regime of reasoning, and recently AP "lumped" me together with the >> "standard theorists". > [...] > > I respectfully disagree with your view that mathematicians should be > concerned with what Branson (who, it seems, debated "denotation" > or something with Russell) thought, when math. questions are > what's being discussed. > > I think you and I are in a stalemate position here on the point above. > I offer to make peace, in the following form: > > That you and I agree to disagree on Branson vs Russell, > when limited to math. questions. > > > David I think you accidentally mistook me for another poster. I've never mentioned Branson or Russell here. (In fact I haven't heard of Branson before!)
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 6 Mar 2010 10:55 Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: > David Bernier wrote: >> Nam Nguyen wrote: >>> Aatu Koskensilta wrote: >>>> Marshall <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> For me, Nam has mostly moved into the same category as AP. >>>> >>>> Come now, even if you don't find Nam's posts worth reading comparing him >>>> to Archimedes Plutonium is surely excessively harsh. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks. But it's ok Aatu. I've been"blasted" by both the "orthodox" and >>> the "crank" for years; nothing is new. >>> >>> It's hard to be in a 3rd party isn't it? In the past one "crank" alluded >>> that I wasn't "liberal"/"open-minded" enough in my critique of the >>> current >>> regime of reasoning, and recently AP "lumped" me together with the >>> "standard theorists". >> [...] >> >> I respectfully disagree with your view that mathematicians should be >> concerned with what Branson (who, it seems, debated "denotation" >> or something with Russell) thought, when math. questions are >> what's being discussed. >> >> I think you and I are in a stalemate position here on the point above. >> I offer to make peace, in the following form: >> >> That you and I agree to disagree on Branson vs Russell, >> when limited to math. questions. >> >> >> David > > I think you accidentally mistook me for another poster. I've never > mentioned Branson or Russell here. (In fact I haven't heard of Branson > before!) I think he mistook you for Newberry and used the name Branson where he meant Strawson. Aside from those little errors, his post was spot on, I'm sure. -- Jesse F. Hughes "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." -- Yogi Berra
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 6 Mar 2010 11:03
Newberry <newberryxy(a)gmail.com> writes: >> > But I would be curious if any real mathematical proof goes >> > according to your example. Prime numbers are a subset of the natural >> > numbers, but how do you make the implication hold the other way? >> >> I don't recall the argument, but I don't see why you should be >> surprised that a statement like (a) may be provable. > > Here he devil is in the details. We need to see the actual proof to > find where the problem is. Claims of the form (Ex)Px -> (Ex)(Px & Qx) are not that hard to come by. For example, let Px <-> x is an ordered pair of integers (a,b) and b*y = a Qy <-> x is an ordered pair of integers that are coprime. Then, for any real number y, we can prove (Ex)Px -> (Ex)(Px & Qx) I leave you to find the proof and see where the "problem" is. -- "Britney thought the idea of a pre-nup was vile, because she is loved-up with Kevin and cannot envisage breaking up. However, [...] no one in Hollywood these days get married without brokering a deal. [...] She had a long chat with Kevin and he was cool about it." |