'When Are Relations Neither True Nor False?
in [Math]
|
From: Nam Nguyen on 18 Feb 2010 23:29 Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > Marshall <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> Maybe you're not such a smart guy after all.<sob> > > Sobbity-sob. But don't cry for me, Marshall! I recently learned, in an > episode of Bones, that we can't help it if we aren't as intelligent as > others. I was greatly consoled by this, even though it wasn't Angel > himself who said it. > There's time for crying, but there's also time for facing the truth. One would say.
From: Newberry on 18 Feb 2010 23:49 On Feb 18, 6:23 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > Newberry <newberr...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > You are a smart guy. Surely you can come up with a more substantive > > objection than "As usually understood it makes no sense to say of a > > relation that it is or is not true." > > This trivial observation is not in any apparent sense an objection. Why > do you think it is? Objection against what? You are asking me way too many questions: What gave me this peculiar idea? Why it is an objection? What is the objection against? I do not have a clue.
From: Alan Smaill on 19 Feb 2010 09:57 Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: > Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > > "Philosophical" is not a term of derision. Musings about absolute > > undecidability are most assuredly philosophical. It seems you think I > > have said something about the validity of such musings. Why? > > > > You summarily dismissed Calvin's appropriately mentioning of CH in this > thread topic, on the ground that it's philosophical, which I don't see > as justified at all. As Aatu just said, saying that something is philosophical is *not* dismissing it, summarily or otherwise. Why do you think it is? -- Alan Smaill
From: Marshall on 19 Feb 2010 09:57 On Feb 18, 8:09 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > Look, there's a false relation, e.g. the empty set {} for a 1-ary relation > symbol, right? Wrong. Marshall
From: Marshall on 19 Feb 2010 10:00
On Feb 18, 8:49 pm, Newberry <newberr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 6:23 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > > > Newberry <newberr...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > You are a smart guy. Surely you can come up with a more substantive > > > objection than "As usually understood it makes no sense to say of a > > > relation that it is or is not true." > > > This trivial observation is not in any apparent sense an objection. Why > > do you think it is? Objection against what? > > You are asking me way too many questions: What gave me this peculiar > idea? Why it is an objection? What is the objection against? I do not > have a clue. Two. Two questions he asked you. In essence he simply asked you why you used the word "objection" in describing his reply, which he did not intend as an objection. If that blows your mind, well then I don't know what to say. Marshall |