An Ultrafinite Set Theory
in [Theory]
|
Prev: Now Win a laptop computer from (EZ laptop) free of charge
Next: Prizes worth 104,000 INR at stake for RAD. Certificates to all participants.
From: MoeBlee on 4 Mar 2010 13:00 On Mar 3, 11:15 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > On Mar 3, 8:21 am, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 2, 9:46 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > First, Transfer Prinicple, you blowhard, you lied again about me in > > your previous posts. And, so far, you've not responded to my latest > > requests that you stop doing that. > > The reason that I don't promise to stop "lying" I'm not asking you to promise not to do it. I'm asking you not to do it. (And no scare quotes needed around 'lying'.) > is that after I do, > I'd > inevitably see a MoeBlee post that I'll consider to be representative > of what I call standard theorist/anti-"crank" behavior, and then I'd > use that post to make a generalization about standard theorists or > anti-"cranks," and that generalization would be considered a lie. What are lies are you saying things about MY posts that are not true. > So > I'd be making a promise that I know I wouldn't be able to keep. That's refreshingly honest. Yes, perhaps you can't honestly promise not to lie, because you're not capable of not lying. > (Of course, the easiest way to stop posting "lies" about MoeBlee > on Usenet is just to stop posting on Usenet, period. But calling > me a "liar" isn't going to make me disappear that easily, any more > than calling someone a "crank" makes "cranks" stop posting.) My motive in pointing out that you're lying about me is not to get you to stop posting, but rather to get you to stop lying about me. But, of course, if you're not capable of posting without lying about me... > > You have my contempt for that. > > We're opponents, and so I expect nothing less. I don't have contempt for you because you are an "opponent" (whatever that means in this context). But rather because you continue to lie about me, even after I've pointed out your lies time after time, and you then, as you did recently, you skip past my protests in that regard. > > > Now ZF+~AC proves the existence of nonempty sets > > > without choice functions. But according to the standard > > > theory ZFC, every nonempty set has a choice function. So > > > what if I were to claim that therefore, these nonempty > > > objects in ZF+~AC that lack choice functions aren't really > > > sets, so we should call them "rets" or "tets" instead? > > But that said, still, when someone uses ordinary terminology in a way > > that is RADICALLY different > > I don't consider RE's use of the terminology to be _radically_ > different > at all. The whole setup of RussellE is so radically different from ordinary set theory that he would do a great deal to avoid terminology confusion by using his own. > > Also, for someone such as RussellE who does not understand the > > axiomatic method, using words like 'ret' and 'rment' emphasizes that > > his actual mathematical arguments may not make any use of the > > connotations, suggested associations, and other non-formal baggage > > associated with the terminology, but rather that the formal reasoning > > must be purely from the axioms and definitions (i.e., Hilbert's famous > > 'tables and beer mugs' explanation). > > I sort of see what MoeBlee is getting at here. What's even "sort of" about it? It's a plain, simple idea. MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 4 Mar 2010 13:10 On Mar 3, 11:41 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > Thanks. You've said 'in a strictly logical sense' a few times. Would > > you amplify what you mean by that in this context? > > Do we need the Lorentz group in our physical blather about relativity? > Not in any strictly logical sense, in that in physical applications we > can explain away any general reference to the group, by concentrating on > the concrete physical situation at hand. What we need, in a strictly > logical sense, in our physical thinking, are those basic mathematical > principles -- of a theory conservative over PA, say, in which we can do > stuff with sets of naturals, functions on naturals, reals, what have you > -- without which it is impossible to derive the (particular applications > of) the mathematics we make use of in our analysis of concrete physical > situations. (Here "concrete" is to be understood widely, in a rather > attenuated sense.) This observation, in the philosophy of mathematics, > is essentially a counter to the Quinean idea that classical mathematics > is justified because it is a part of and presupposed in our best > scientific stories, and hence we should accept e.g. infinitary set > theory. Unless one endorses such Quinean follies the observation is of > course perfectly consistent with the view that e.g. large large Thanks. I think I get the gist of it (without prejudice as to whether Quine's notions do or don't hold up). Another question, unrelated to this. Somewhere else you mentioned that there was an overlooked technical problem with some rule of logic (substitution? replacement of some sort?). What specifically were you referring to? And would you relate some more about the historical details? MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 4 Mar 2010 13:16 On Mar 4, 6:55 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> writes: > > (Of course, the easiest way to stop posting "lies" about MoeBlee > > on Usenet is just to stop posting on Usenet, period. But calling > > me a "liar" isn't going to make me disappear that easily, any more > > than calling someone a "crank" makes "cranks" stop posting.) > > An alternative is to stop generalizing. When Moe says something, he > speaks for Moe. And, selfishly speaking, I stress that when "standard theorists" or anyone else says something, then they speak for themselves and not necessarily for Moe. MoeBlee
From: Frederick Williams on 4 Mar 2010 13:51 MoeBlee wrote: > Another question, unrelated to this. Somewhere else you mentioned that > there was an overlooked technical problem with some rule of logic > (substitution? replacement of some sort?). What specifically were you > referring to? And would you relate some more about the historical > details? Is this about the error in Hilbert & Ackermann (1928) that wasn't fixed until Church, Intro. to mathematical logic (1944)?
From: MoeBlee on 4 Mar 2010 19:05
On Mar 4, 12:51 pm, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...(a)tesco.net> wrote: > MoeBlee wrote: > > Another question, unrelated to this. Somewhere else you mentioned that > > there was an overlooked technical problem with some rule of logic > > (substitution? replacement of some sort?). What specifically were you > > referring to? And would you relate some more about the historical > > details? > > Is this about the error in Hilbert & Ackermann (1928) that wasn't fixed > until Church, Intro. to mathematical logic (1944)? I don't know. Tell me about that please. (Or is there a link to it?) Thanks. MoeBlee |