'When Are Relations Neither True Nor False?
in [Math]
|
From: Nam Nguyen on 16 Mar 2010 01:09 MoeBlee wrote: > > A model is a mathematical object. Provided that that object _actually conforms_ to the mathematical definition of the word "model", of course. > How would one ridicule a mathematical object? _If it actually is_ a mathematical object.
From: Nam Nguyen on 16 Mar 2010 01:15 MoeBlee wrote: > What is crank is not the particular > mathematical claims, but rather the WAY in which they argued along > with certain other behaviours reflecting irrationality, ignorance, and > intellectual dishonesty. Exactly! "The WAY in which they argued ... and intellectual dishonesty", are hallmark of cranks or *crank-like* ones.
From: MoeBlee on 16 Mar 2010 10:45 On Mar 15, 10:32 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > MoeBlee wrote: > > On Mar 11, 3:00 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> 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. > > > I've refuted so much of your nonsense over YEARS. > > That's why I said your attacking people's argument is very much borderline > _dishonesty_, if not outrightly so. I've not said anything dishonest above. I challenge you to actually provide a > single proof that you refuted my arguments that you'd call non-sense. Example: Your claim that there is no such thing as the theory of a model. Example: The absurdly protracted intervention with you as several posters tried to get you to understand that "x+y=0" is a theorem of the particular theory then mentioned. Further examples found just by searching many of the exchanges we have had over the last few years. Even very recently, your claim (or challenge, whatever it was) that the incompleteness theorem has no formal proof. MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 16 Mar 2010 10:40 On Mar 15, 10:22 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > MoeBlee wrote: > >> Fine, the non-"cranks" or anti-"cranks," then. Or perhaps the word > >> often used by galathaea is more appropriate here -- "bullies." > > > I like 'crankbusters'. > > Yeah. Bad cops called themselves cops too. Yes, they did give fine to > "law breakers" (i.e. some poor traffic drivers), and they'd brag about > it, trying to make people forget why they're called bad cops. Maybe if you just learned how to drive you wouldn't be pulled over so often. MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 16 Mar 2010 10:48
On Mar 16, 12:01 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > MoeBlee wrote: > > On Mar 11, 2:18 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> MoeBlee wrote: > >>> On Mar 10, 8:47 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >>>> Daryl McCullough wrote: > >>>>> Give an example of a nontrivial theorem in such a system. I don't > >>>>> think anyone would be interested in it, not even you. > >>>> How about ExAy[~(Sy=x)], in Q (in that edifice)? It's an arithmetic > >>>> theorem, got to be interesting, isn't it? > >>> Ha! (If your question is rhetorical, which it sure appears to be), you > >>> just committed an obvious fallacy. > >> Just so you know (and you should have), Daryl challenged me a straight > >> forward task: "give *an* example of a nontrivial theorem in such a system" > >> which he himself believed I wouldn't be interested in. I directly responded > >> to him with a straight forward example and through question-style I informed > >> him he was wrong since it's interesting to me, it being an arithmetic > >> theorem in Q. > > >> If you interpreted that straight forward answer as an "obvious fallacy" > >> then obviously you were incapable of comprehending a short conversation > >> between people here. > > > What you did is to give an example of an uninteresting theorem in Q. > > Apparently you didn't understand the short conversation. First, Daryl > asked me to give an example of a _nontrivial_ theorem. I gave him > just that. He asked for a nontrivial theorem in YOUR system (whatever that might be). Your response including giving a theorem of Q. MoeBlee |