'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 6 Mar 2010 10:10

Nam Nguyen wrote:

> [And in this post this isn't the only time your _ignoring_ could be
> noticed!]
>

I of course meant "in this thread".

From: David Bernier on 6 Mar 2010 10:32

Nam Nguyen wrote:
> Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>> Marshall <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> For me, Nam has mostly moved into the same category as AP.
>>
>> Come now, even if you don't find Nam's posts worth reading comparing him
>> to Archimedes Plutonium is surely excessively harsh.
>>
>
> Thanks. But it's ok Aatu. I've been"blasted" by both the "orthodox" and
> the "crank" for years; nothing is new.
>
> It's hard to be in a 3rd party isn't it? In the past one "crank" alluded
> that I wasn't "liberal"/"open-minded" enough in my critique of the current
> regime of reasoning, and recently AP "lumped" me together with the
> "standard theorists".
[...]

I respectfully disagree with your view that mathematicians should be
concerned with what Branson (who, it seems, debated "denotation"
or something with Russell) thought, when math. questions are
what's being discussed.

I think you and I are in a stalemate position here on the point above.
I offer to make peace, in the following form:

That you and I agree to disagree on Branson vs Russell,
when limited to math. questions.

David

From: Nam Nguyen on 6 Mar 2010 10:36

David Bernier wrote:
> Nam Nguyen wrote:
>> Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>>> Marshall <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> For me, Nam has mostly moved into the same category as AP.
>>>
>>> Come now, even if you don't find Nam's posts worth reading comparing him
>>> to Archimedes Plutonium is surely excessively harsh.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks. But it's ok Aatu. I've been"blasted" by both the "orthodox" and
>> the "crank" for years; nothing is new.
>>
>> It's hard to be in a 3rd party isn't it? In the past one "crank" alluded
>> that I wasn't "liberal"/"open-minded" enough in my critique of the
>> current
>> regime of reasoning, and recently AP "lumped" me together with the
>> "standard theorists".
> [...]
>
> I respectfully disagree with your view that mathematicians should be
> concerned with what Branson (who, it seems, debated "denotation"
> or something with Russell) thought, when math. questions are
> what's being discussed.
>
> I think you and I are in a stalemate position here on the point above.
> I offer to make peace, in the following form:
>
> That you and I agree to disagree on Branson vs Russell,
> when limited to math. questions.
>
>
> David

I think you accidentally mistook me for another poster. I've never
mentioned Branson or Russell here. (In fact I haven't heard of Branson
before!)

From: Jesse F. Hughes on 6 Mar 2010 10:55

Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes:

> David Bernier wrote:
>> Nam Nguyen wrote:
>>> Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>>>> Marshall <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> For me, Nam has mostly moved into the same category as AP.
>>>>
>>>> Come now, even if you don't find Nam's posts worth reading comparing him
>>>> to Archimedes Plutonium is surely excessively harsh.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks. But it's ok Aatu. I've been"blasted" by both the "orthodox" and
>>> the "crank" for years; nothing is new.
>>>
>>> It's hard to be in a 3rd party isn't it? In the past one "crank" alluded
>>> that I wasn't "liberal"/"open-minded" enough in my critique of the
>>> current
>>> regime of reasoning, and recently AP "lumped" me together with the
>>> "standard theorists".
>> [...]
>>
>> I respectfully disagree with your view that mathematicians should be
>> concerned with what Branson (who, it seems, debated "denotation"
>> or something with Russell) thought, when math. questions are
>> what's being discussed.
>>
>> I think you and I are in a stalemate position here on the point above.
>> I offer to make peace, in the following form:
>>
>> That you and I agree to disagree on Branson vs Russell,
>> when limited to math. questions.
>>
>>
>> David
>
> I think you accidentally mistook me for another poster. I've never
> mentioned Branson or Russell here. (In fact I haven't heard of Branson
> before!)

I think he mistook you for Newberry and used the name Branson where he
meant Strawson.

Aside from those little errors, his post was spot on, I'm sure.

--
Jesse F. Hughes

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice there is." -- Yogi Berra

From: Jesse F. Hughes on 6 Mar 2010 11:03

Newberry <newberryxy(a)gmail.com> writes:

>> > But I would be curious if any real mathematical proof goes
>> > according to your example. Prime numbers are a subset of the natural
>> > numbers, but how do you make the implication hold the other way?
>>
>> I don't recall the argument, but I don't see why you should be
>> surprised that a statement like (a) may be provable.
>
> Here he devil is in the details. We need to see the actual proof to
> find where the problem is.

Claims of the form (Ex)Px -> (Ex)(Px & Qx) are not that hard to come
by. For example, let

Px <-> x is an ordered pair of integers (a,b) and b*y = a

Qy <-> x is an ordered pair of integers that are coprime.

Then, for any real number y, we can prove

(Ex)Px -> (Ex)(Px & Qx)

I leave you to find the proof and see where the "problem" is.

--
"Britney thought the idea of a pre-nup was vile, because she is
loved-up with Kevin and cannot envisage breaking up. However, [...] no
one in Hollywood these days get married without brokering a
deal. [...] She had a long chat with Kevin and he was cool about it."