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 11 Apr 2010 17:09
Nam Nguyen wrote:
> Alan Smaill wrote:
>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes:
>>
>>> David Bernier wrote:
>>
>>>> Do you see problems with starting with a false premise, not(P) ?
>>> Yes. I'd break "the Principle of Symmetry": if we could start with
>>> not(P),
>>> we could start with P.
>>
>> And so you could, so that's not a problem.
>>
>> But what would you prove?
>>
>
> It was a typo, I meant "It'd the Principle of Symmetry".
> Would you still have any question then?

I meant "It'd break the Principle of Symmetry".
From: Nam Nguyen on 11 Apr 2010 17:46
Marshall wrote:
> On Apr 11, 8:25 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote:
>> Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> writes:
>>> I don't see any reason to pay much attention to anyone's
>>> intuition, my own included.
>> This is a sober attitude.
>
> I am mostly a sober person, in that I am drunk less
> than half the time.
>
>
>>> "Intuition" is just a fancy word for "hunch."
>> "Intuition" can mean pretty much anything, from a vague hunch to
>> something very specific, as in e.g. Kant's thought.
>
> Indeed so, which is exactly what makes it a poor choice
> when used in contexts such as this newsgroup.

Then, it also looks like a poor choice of using the _intuition_ about
the naturals as a foundation of reasoning, as the school of thought AK,
TF seem to have subscribed to, would suggest.
From: Alan Smaill on 11 Apr 2010 18:09
Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes:

> Nam Nguyen wrote:
>> Alan Smaill wrote:
>>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes:
>>>
>>>> David Bernier wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Do you see problems with starting with a false premise, not(P) ?
>>>> Yes. I'd break "the Principle of Symmetry": if we could start with
>>>> not(P),
>>>> we could start with P.
>>>
>>> And so you could, so that's not a problem.
>>>
>>> But what would you prove?
>>>
>>
>> It was a typo, I meant "It'd the Principle of Symmetry".
>> Would you still have any question then?
>
> I meant "It'd break the Principle of Symmetry".

How?

You *can* start by supposing P;
and if you can derive a contradiction, you get a proof
on "not P".

What's the symmetry that's broken, according to you?


--
Alan Smaill
From: Nam Nguyen on 11 Apr 2010 18:17
Alan Smaill wrote:
> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes:
>
>> David Bernier wrote:
>
>>> Do you see problems with starting with a false premise, not(P) ?
>> Yes. I'd break "the Principle of Symmetry": if we could start with not(P),
>> we could start with P.
>
> And so you could, so that's not a problem.
>
> But what would you prove?
>

Assuming you understand I said 'It'd break "the Principle of Symmetry"...'
and assuming you meant such a symmetry breaking isn't a problem, then

a) one (you or I for example) would prove ordinary mathematical theorems
through rules of inference, as may people have been able to do so;

b) the Principle is actually not about what you can or can't know how to
prove through rules of inference. So your question here is moot;

c) in light of rules of inference and syntactical proofs are finite,
it's an incorrect attitude, as people in your school of thought
seem to have, to insist the knowledge required in reasoning is
entitlement-based instead of endowment-based.

We're human beings with ability to comprehend only finite mathematical
properties, not god-like super beings who would comprehend "omega"
properties, such as the syntactical consistency of PA.

Frankly speaking, to think otherwise is just an illusion.
From: Nam Nguyen on 11 Apr 2010 18:19
Alan Smaill wrote:
> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes:
>
>> David Bernier wrote:
>
>>> Do you see problems with starting with a false premise, not(P) ?
>> Yes. I'd break "the Principle of Symmetry": if we could start with not(P),
>> we could start with P.
>
> And so you could, so that's not a problem.
>
> But what would you prove?
>

Assuming you understand I said 'It'd break "the Principle of Symmetry"...'
and assuming you meant such a symmetry breaking isn't a problem, then

a) one (you or I for example) would prove ordinary mathematical theorems
through rules of inference, as may people have been able to do so;

b) the Principle is actually not about what you can or can't know how to
prove through rules of inference. So your question here is moot;

c) in light of rules of inference and syntactical proofs are finite,
it's an incorrect attitude, as people in your school of thought
seem to have, to insist the knowledge required in reasoning is
entitlement-based instead of endowment-based.

We're human beings with ability to comprehend only finite mathematical
properties, not god-like super beings who would comprehend "omega"
properties, such as the syntactical consistency of PA.

Frankly speaking, to think otherwise is just an illusion.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147
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.