'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: Aatu Koskensilta on 15 Mar 2010 17:43

MoeBlee <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> writes:

> Who ridicules MODELS? What an insane idea! A model is a mathematical
> object. How would one ridicule a mathematical object?

"Ha! Ha! What a pathetic, pitiful excuse for a model. It's not even
omega-saturated! Ha! Ha!"

> Would you please LISTEN this time?

You're quite the optimist, aren't you?

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi)

"Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

From: MoeBlee on 15 Mar 2010 17:46

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. Really, I just can't
obligate myself to refute every thing you write simply to prevent you
from concluding that what you've written is irrefutable by me.

> > However, I've already made some remarks
> > that should be adequate as a starting point.
>
> Whatever that might - or might not - mean.

It refers to certain of the remarks I"ve made in this thread already.

> > Moreover, much of your
> > posting I really can't make much sense of.
>
> That's your issue.

Sure. And the issue of certain other people. Also, it's your issue to
the extent that you might wish to COMMUNICATE.

> > 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?

Yes, 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?

You're choosing material that I did NOT remark on. Whatever the merits
of what you take to be as such a principle mentioned above, when I say
that I find much of your stuff to be confused and ill-informed, I
haven't implied that EVERY statement you make is confused or ill-
informed.

> > Moreover, you
> > continually skip responding to some of my most vital points.
>
> Really? Which ones? How many do you have?

Just look for yourself at the post. I type my responses, then you skip
much of the imporant points, then I mention that, so then I'm supposed
to go round and round and round again re-typing and re-typing?

> > 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?

Yes, 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?

Probably a couple of years or more. I've mentioned it from time to
time since then.

> And this was your talking in other people's conversations (Alan,
> Marshall).

There is no "other people's conversations". These are open threads.

> 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.

It was STRIKINGLY memorable when we first went back and forth over the
matter of recognition of differences in finite strings.

> 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.

Oh you're such a scrappy little time-saver you are.

> 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.

I didn't claim to have rebutted your Fourfold Path to Mathematical
Enlightenment.

MoeBlee

From: Nam Nguyen on 15 Mar 2010 23:22

MoeBlee wrote:
> On Mar 11, 12:00 am, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 9, 8:37 am, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 9, 12:21 am, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote:
>>>> if a known so-called "crank," let's say
>>>> JSH, were to state that the sky is blue, the _standard theorists_
>>>> would be the ones to start coming up with obscure counterexamples
>>>> such as the Doppler effect at velocities approaching c, alien
>>>> languages in which "blue" means "red," and so forth.
>>> "The standard theorists" would do that? How do you know? WHICH
>>> "standard theorists"? And would you please say exactly what you mean
>>> by "a standard theorist"?
>> 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.

From: Nam Nguyen on 15 Mar 2010 23:32

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 challenge you to actually provide a
single proof that you refuted my arguments that you'd call non-sense.

From: Nam Nguyen on 16 Mar 2010 01:01

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.

Secondly, _he said even I wouldn't interested_ in it and that is wrong,
because _to me_ non-trivial theorems should reflect something new that
axioms have not reflected and in this case the theorem does remind me
certain uni-directional flow in provability.

> Of course, I'm taking your "got to be interesting, isn't it?" as
> sarcasm, but even if not sarcasm, it's easy to counter just by saying,
> "No, we don't take that theorem as particularly interesting. But
> rather such theorems as as used for more profound scientific
> calcululations or even of merely abstract but still fascinating
> mathematical results."

Why do you think all this is relevant to a simple "nontrivial theorem"
challenge he asked, and to my simple answer to him? (Do you have to get
into a "fight" when there's no reason to?)