'When Are Relations Neither True Nor False? [Logic]

Prev: geometry precisely defining ellipsis and how infinity is in the midsection #427 Correcting Math
Next: Accounting for Governmental and Nonprofit Entities, 15th Edition Earl Wilson McGraw Hill Test bank is available at affordable prices. Email me at allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com if you need to buy this. All emails will be answered ASAP.

From: Nam Nguyen on 26 Mar 2010 19:35

MoeBlee wrote:
> On Mar 26, 4:16 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
>> MoeBlee wrote:
>>> On Mar 26, 3:11 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>> if you could demonstrate a truly absolute abstract truth in mathematical
>>>> reasoning, I'd leave the forum never coming back.
>>> Oh, sweet seduction, please don't tempt me so!
>> Go ahead and demonstrate one, or prove any of my 4 principles is wrong.
>> If you can.
>
> Oh, Nam, how you make my heart all aflutter!

Oh MoeBlee, how you fail time to time to technically show what I'd say
about the foundation issues of FOL reasoning be wrong.

From: Marshall on 26 Mar 2010 22:09

On Mar 26, 4:35 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> MoeBlee wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 4:16 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> MoeBlee wrote:
> >>> On Mar 26, 3:11 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> >>>> if you could demonstrate a truly absolute abstract truth in mathematical
> >>>> reasoning, I'd leave the forum never coming back.
> >>> Oh, sweet seduction, please don't tempt me so!
> >> Go ahead and demonstrate one, or prove any of my 4 principles is wrong..
> >> If you can.
>
> > Oh, Nam, how you make my heart all aflutter!
>
> Oh MoeBlee, how you fail time to time to technically show what I'd say
> about the foundation issues of FOL reasoning be wrong.

That Moe has failed to do so in a way that you can understand
is a failing, but it's not Moe's failing.

Marshall

From: Nam Nguyen on 26 Mar 2010 23:57

Marshall wrote:
> On Mar 26, 4:35 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
>> MoeBlee wrote:
>>> On Mar 26, 4:16 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>> MoeBlee wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 26, 3:11 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> if you could demonstrate a truly absolute abstract truth in mathematical
>>>>>> reasoning, I'd leave the forum never coming back.
>>>>> Oh, sweet seduction, please don't tempt me so!
>>>> Go ahead and demonstrate one, or prove any of my 4 principles is wrong.
>>>> If you can.
>>> Oh, Nam, how you make my heart all aflutter!
>> Oh MoeBlee, how you fail time to time to technically show what I'd say
>> about the foundation issues of FOL reasoning be wrong.
>
> That Moe has failed to do so in a way that you can understand
> is a failing, but it's not Moe's failing.

Where did Moe successfully demonstrate, say, an absolute truth that
I failed to understand, or my 4 principles are wrong and I couldn't
understand his demonstration?

Or you're just full of babbling words with no technical substance,
as usual? [It seems like a habit of yours that when you couldn't
technically counter your opponent's argument then you just call him
a mad dog!]

From: Newberry on 27 Mar 2010 00:03

On Mar 26, 3:49 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
> Newberry says...
>
>
>
> >On Mar 25, 3:38=A0am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough)
> >wrote:
> >> Newberry says...
>
> >> >If you take the position that there are truth value gaps then the Liar
> >> >papradox is solvable in English.
>
> >> What does it mean to be "solvable" and why do you want it to be solvable?
>
> >It mean that there is a plausible explanation why there is no
> >inconsistency. I do not like inconsistencies.
>
> 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 paraox
in the natural language.

From: Newberry on 27 Mar 2010 00:09

On Mar 26, 3:53 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> Newberry <newberr...(a)gmail.com> writes:
> > On Mar 25, 10:26 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> >> Newberry <newberr...(a)gmail.com> writes:
> >> > On Mar 24, 3:32 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> >> >> Newberry <newberr...(a)gmail.com> writes:
> >> >> > Plus
>
> >> >> > (x)((x = x + 1) -> (x = x + 2))
>
> >> >> > does not look particularly meaningful to me.
>
> >> >> I don't believe you.
>
> >> > Trust me.
>
> >> >> You know what it means. It's perfectly clear
> >> >> what it means. It means that whenever x = x + 1, then x = x + 2.[1]
>
> >> > The sentence "if it rains then some roads are wet" describes a
> >> > possible state of affairs. I can picture to myself what it means. I
> >> > can even picture "if it rains then no roads are wet." It is still
> >> > conceivable although very unlikely. "If it rains and does not rain
> >> > then the roads are wet" does not describe any possible state of
> >> > affairs. I cannot picture to myself what it expresses.
>
> >> Is the statement "Honesty is a virtue" meaningful? What do you
> >> picture when you think about that statement?
>
> > It can certainly be analyzed into something imaginable.
>
> Well, have at it!
>
> >> As usual, your claim that meaning involves picturing various states of
> >> affairs is silliness. I can understand various theorems about, say,
> >> infinite dimensional spaces. I daresay that I know those theorems are
> >> meaningful, even though I cannot picture a space with more than three
> >> dimensions.
>
> > This argument is indeed silly. These theorems are about Certesian
> > products R x R x R x R ... If you understand numbers, real numbers
> > and cartesian products then you of course understand statements about
> > sets of n-tuples of real numbers. If the product has less than 4
> > dimensions then it can also be understood as staments about the
> > physical space.
>
> So? You said that I have to be able to picture it.

You can picture 2 + 2 = 4. For example the union of a set of two red
apples with a set of two green apples is a set of four apples. The
number 2 is the set of all sets of cardinality 2. The number 4 is the
set of all sets of cardinality 4. From the natural numbers you
construct rational numbers and real numbers and Cartesian producst of
real numbers ...

>
>
>
>
>
> >> Of course, as Daryl points out, it is very easy to "picture" what the
> >> above sentence means. It means the same thing as
>
> >> (Ax)( ~(x = x + 1) or (x = x + 2) ).
>
> >> I see no problem understanding that sentence at all.
>
> >> > The analytic sentences are rather odd. But even then given "all
> >> > bachelors are unmarried" if you examine every bachelor you will find
> >> > that he is umarried. Given "all married bachelors are unmarried
> >> > bachelors" is just like "when it rains and does not rain ..." I cannot
> >> > picture anything.
>
> >> > Similaly I cannot picture (x)(x = x+1) -> (x = x+2) any better than I
> >> > can picture anything being attributing to married bachelors.
>
> >> As I said previously, I understand the meaning of that sentence and
> >> can even immediately see that it is true, through the following
> >> perfectly simple reasoning.
>
> > You are saying what the world would look like if x = x + 1. No such
> > word is possible so it is not possible to say or even to imagine what
> > such a world would look like.
>
> No, I'm not saying what the world would look like if x = x + 1. I'm
> merely pointing out a single consequence of that equation. Indeed,
> this consequence is *true* in those structures in which x = x + 1.
> (As Nam pointed out, such structures do exist, you know.)
>
>
>
> >> >> [1] In fact, this statement seems obviously true! Suppose
> >> >> x = x + 1. Then we may substitute x + 1 for x in the right hand side
> >> >> of the equation x = x + 1, thus:
>
> >> >> x = x + 1
> >> >> = (x + 1) + 1
> >> >> = x + 2.
>
> >> >> I see nothing the least bit fishy about this reasoning.
>
> --
> "You are beneath contempt because you betray mathematics itself, and
> spit upon the truth, spit upon decency, and spit upon the intelligence
> of the world. You betrayed the world, and now it's time for the world
> to notice." -- James S. Harris awaits Justice for crimes against Math.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -