Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.



Re: ALL(F):N>R is 2OL! NOT 1OL!!!!!!
Posted:
Nov 15, 2012 1:44 AM


On Nov 15, 4:24 pm, forbisga...@gmail.com wrote: > ALL(A)[(EXISTS(w)(weA) AND EXISTS(x) ALL(w)(weA>w<=z))> > EXISTS(x) ALL(y)([All(w)(weA>w<=y)]<>x<=y)] > > where <= is being used as "less than or equal to". > I'm leaving the brackets in place because it appears > some use it as a transform from true to 1 and false to 0. > I dont get it in this context. It seems to mix some > programming languages' coding for the comparison operators > with their logical value. >
Most people here use A(x) E(x) or Ax Ex
I *emphasised* ALL(F): merely to imply the reading "ALL FUNCTIONS", since that was my point about 2OL.
<= is definable using Peano Arithmetic
A(n) 0 <= n A(m) A(n) s(m)<=s(n) > m<=n
e.g.
s(0) <= s(s((0)) ?
m=0 n=s(0)
s(m)<=s(n) > m<=n 2nd Axiom
0 <= s(0) 1st Axiom
Herc



