'When Are Relations Neither True Nor False?
in [Math]
|
From: Nam Nguyen on 11 Mar 2010 03:00 MoeBlee wrote: > On Mar 10, 9:18 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> In any rate, do you (Daryl, MoeBlee) see anything wrong with the 4 >> principles? And if so why? [You both seem to have resisted their >> "power". No?] > > I don't have time or interest to type out responses regarding all of > what you've posted recently. If you say so. I'm just being frank and said based on *many* paragraphs and sentences you did respond in this thread, you just didn't know how to refute my arguments and principles, when you had time and interest. > However, I've already made some remarks > that should be adequate as a starting point. Whatever that might - or might not - mean. > Moreover, much of your > posting I really can't make much sense of. That's your issue. > I find myself continually > asking what you mean by your ersatz terminology, only to find that the > terminological hole just gets deeper and deeper. Really? For example, one of what I said is: >> (1) Principle of Consistency: >> >> No methods shall lead to contradictory conclusions. What "hole" did you find in such a trivial principle that even a non-math freshman would understand? > Moreover, you > continually skip responding to some of my most vital points. Really? Which ones? How many do you have? > Moreover, > I can barely find common ground for discussion with someone who won't > even admit that we can reliably distinguish the string > > 1 1 1 > > from the string > > 1 1 0 > > (or whatever the exact example was). Really? The _first time in this thread_ you mentioned that was on Mar. 5th and here is what you said: >>> He denies it is apparent that >>> >>> 000 >>> >>> is a different string of characters from >>> >>> 001 >>> >>> (or whatever the actual example I used). MoeBlee, when was it that was implied in your "or whatever the actual example I used"? Was that 6 month before? 1 year? 2 years? And this was your talking in other people's conversations (Alan, Marshall). When you accused me of "denies it is apparent that ...", something of an unspecified past conversation, in other people's talk without presenting the context of the accusation, then you shouldn't be surprised if I've ignored that accusation. Because I don't have time for such no-good-faith, borderline-dishonesty kind of talking. If I manage to respond to that kind of talking, I'd be only blasting it, as I'm doing now. *** In summary, I don't care what excuses you have in this post, you just haven't found anything technically wrong about the 4 principles.
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 11 Mar 2010 07:12 Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> writes: > On Mar 9, 9:09 am, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> for their circular reasoning, for their poetic/imagistic rather than >> rigorous use of mathematical terminology > > Does "poetic" refer to their use of English, rather than formal > symbolic > language, to describe concepts? To me, I find "<= is a total order" > much easier to read and understand than: > > Axyz (x<=x & ((x<=y & y<=x) -> x=x) & ((x<=y & y<=z) -> x<=z)) > > even if the latter is considered more "rigorous." No one is called poetic for saying things like "<= is a total order." That's a perfectly clear statement. -- "Yup, you guessed it. If worse comes to worse, I *will* turn to the Army to help me with mathematicians. And then mathematicians don't think the NSA or CIA can save your asses, as generals LIKE me." -- James Harris's latest foray into mathematical logic.
From: Daryl McCullough on 11 Mar 2010 07:21 Nam Nguyen says... >Daryl McCullough wrote: >> I know exactly what the naturals are. > >Don't say that out loud! Only super-natural being could have a >chance to know "exactly" what the naturals are! That's not true. We know exactly what the naturals are. Something is a natural if it is either 0 or is obtained from 0 by a finite number of applications of the "successor" operator. >> I don't know how to answer >> every question about the naturals, that's not the same thing. > >To know something, logically speaking, is to know everything, >while not to know something, not knowing only part of it is >sufficient. You can't know something unless you know everything? That's a pretty bizarre belief of yours. We know what the naturals are, we don't know every true fact about the naturals. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Marshall on 11 Mar 2010 10:29 On Mar 10, 9:24 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Daryl McCullough wrote: > >> How certain is that while you don't know exactly what the naturals > >> collectively is? > > > I know exactly what the naturals are. > > Don't say that out loud! Only super-natural being could have a > chance to know "exactly" what the naturals are! > > > I don't know how to answer > > every question about the naturals, that's not the same thing. > > To know something, logically speaking, is to know everything, That's nutty. I know something. So therefore I know everything? And your fancy GC-related queries are all excessively more complicated than is necessary to make the argument you are making. All that is necessary to make your argument is to challenge Daryl McCullough, when he says he knows exactly what the naturals are, to name them. Of course, I consider that argument silly. Marshall
From: Nam Nguyen on 11 Mar 2010 21:39
Marshall wrote: > On Mar 10, 9:24 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> Daryl McCullough wrote: >>>> How certain is that while you don't know exactly what the naturals >>>> collectively is? >>> I know exactly what the naturals are. >> Don't say that out loud! Only super-natural being could have a >> chance to know "exactly" what the naturals are! >> >>> I don't know how to answer >>> every question about the naturals, that's not the same thing. >> To know something, logically speaking, is to know everything, > > That's nutty. I know something. So therefore I know everything? You just read that too quick: I didn't say "..is to know everything else"! Iow, to know something is to know everything about that something - or to know the entirety of that something. There's partial knowledge, that isn't the same as the whole knowledge. Of course. > > And your fancy GC-related queries are all excessively more > complicated than is necessary to make the argument you > are making. It's actually necessarily complicated .... > All that is necessary to make your argument is > to challenge Daryl McCullough, when he says he knows > exactly what the naturals are, to name them. because he and his side would claim they could name them. Have you been aware of the thing called "Generalized Induction Definition"? They'd use that to name them. > > Of course, I consider that argument silly. Why? Do you have specific technical reasons to back you up? |