On Oct 29, 1:29 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...@member.ams.org> wrote: > On Sunday, October 28, 2012 10:27:52 PM UTC-5, Hercules ofZeus wrote: > > On Oct 29, 1:14 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...@member.ams.org> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 28, 2012 10:01:31 PM UTC-5, Hercules ofZeus wrote: > > > > > On Oct 29, 12:20 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...@member.ams.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, October 28, 2012 9:04:41 PM UTC-5, JRStern wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:41:59 -0700 (PDT), Arturo Magidin > > > > > > > <magi...@member.ams.org> wrote: > > > > > > > >Huh? > > > > > > > >Sorry, but that statement makes absolute no sense > > > > > > > >whatsoever to me. What exactly was the point you > > > > > > > >were attempting to make? > > > > > > > That I am not arguing with the conclusion that Cantor's Theorem is > > > > > > > true, I am questioning whether the diagonal argument is coherent. > > > > > > > How can this be unclear? > > > > > > Because I did not simply state the conclusion. I gave you the "diagonal argument". If you are questioning whether it is "coherent", then you should point to whatever point you find incoherent, rather than simply quote and then give a sentence fragment. > > > > > > The government doesn't like it when I read minds without a warrant, so I try not to do it, you see. > > > > > > I have you a complete proof of Cantor's Theorem; the diagonal argument is embedded in that theorem. What is it that you find incoherent? > > > > > > If there is nothing you find incoherent, then why is it that you continue to "question" its coherence? > > > > > > If you could not even tell that you were presented with the argument in the first place, then perhaps your problems arise much sooner than at Cantor's diagonal argument? > > > > > > If it is a *particular* presentation of the argument that concerns you, then it is incumbent upon you to specify which presentation it is you find yourself having doubts about, and stop nattering about "peer-review", books, and the like. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Arturo Magidin > > > > > Are you saying you just proved: > > > > > ALL(f):N->R E(r):R ALL(n):N f(n)=/=r > > > > > in 1ST ORDER LOGIC? > > > > > i.e. FOL = Quantifiers Over Arguments Not Functions. > > > > In ZF, functions are sets; and the objects of the theory are sets. So the statement above is a perfectly fine first order statement in the language of ZF. Moreover, there is a *set* of functions from N to R, so I'm quantifying over the **objects** that are elements of that set. > > > > But surely, if you know about first order logic, then you knew that? > > > > And if you didn't... well, you are someone else whose problems come from much earlier than any objection you might by trying to raise here; your problem is the same as Sir Richard Phillips's. > > > > -- > > > > Arturo Magidin > > > And you see no problem with using a logic composed of predicate > > > strings (functions) to construct sets to construct functions to range > > > over ALL functions, and calling it 1st order logic - No Quantifying > > > over functions here! > > The reason I see no problems is because I actually know what I'm talking about. > > You should try it some day. Until then, let me know when you are actually willing to pay for my insight. I'm tired of casting pearls before the hercs. > > -- > Arturo Magidin >
I'll pay you $5000 to find this guys email address!
"It is extremely important to understand that the classical treatment of language interpretation parameterizes the universal quantifier over collections. Moreover, the existential quantifier is interpreted only with respect to its status as a derivative concept relative to the universal quantifier. These are the underlying assumptions of construction that allow the self-inconsistency of a specific syntactic form to be extended to a metaphysical assertion of reality. "
so I can employ him to work on my Logic Solver!
Unfortunately his ideas weren't welcome in sci.logic 9 years ago.
Apart from that, I have some spots available here: