Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Peer-reviewed arguments against Cantor Diagonalization
Replies: 23   Last Post: Nov 2, 2012 1:46 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Graham Cooper

Posts: 4,295
Registered: 5/20/10
Re: Peer-reviewed arguments against Cantor Diagonalization
Posted: Nov 2, 2012 1:46 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Nov 1, 8:43 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Can you state explicitly what it proves?
>
> > I don't see how MODUS PONENS might make this deduction.
>
> > LHS->RHS & LHS -> RHS
>
> > where RHS = "X > size({1,2,3...})"
>
> > nor how the enumeration of a set and it's index inclusion or not has
> > anything to do what's in the superset.

>
> Sorry, Graham, I was hoping to have a conversation with someone a bit
> more coherent today.
>
> Some other time, perhaps.



Ahhah!

I thought up a New System of Logic today!

Some people like C. Boo think if you're using Natural Deduction anyway
then there need not be this Huge Platonic Web of RULES of Set Theory
to abide by... just use Naive Set Theory anyway.

So it is really true that from a contradiction you can prove anything?

Only if you keep MODUS PONENS!

LHS->RHS ^ LHS -> RHS

------------------------------------

Nve. Set THEORY |- RSeRS, ~RSeRS


Now with

THEORY |- FALSE

INDUCTION RULE : LHS->RHS

INDUCTION CHECK IF IT APPLI:ES : LHS? (MP)

LHS -> RHS

NOT(LHS) or RHS

This version of IMPLIES means: if the LHS applies (is true) then the
RHS must apply
i.e. if the LHS is false, the induction rule doesn't MATCH any fact
(with the bindings in use)
so it has no effect on the RHS.

Sp.... back to my previous derivation from MP.

LHS->RHS ^ LHS -> RHS
(!LHS or RHS) ^ LHS -> RHS
(!LHS ^ LHS) v (RHS^LHS) -> RHS

So if the theory is inconsistent... there is 'likely' a inference
rule LHS->RHS
where LHS MATCHES the predicate pattern of RSeRS..

So
(~RSeRS) & (RSeRS) -> RHS

i.e. a contradictory system proves anything!

-------------------

The QUICK FIX!!??

(LHS->RHS) ^ (LHS is true in some model) ^ (LHS is not false in any
model)
-> RHS

It's very slow to check for errors with every deduction, which is how
humans work with Natural Deductive logic!

Herc



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.