Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: SCI.LOGIC is a STAGNANT CESS PITT of LOSERS!
Replies: 8   Last Post: Nov 17, 2012 7:26 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Graham Cooper Posts: 4,495 Registered: 5/20/10
Re: SCI.LOGIC is a STAGNANT CESS PITT of LOSERS!
Posted: Nov 17, 2012 3:43 PM

On Nov 18, 3:11 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 3:50 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > FROM AXIOMS you DERIVE THEOREMS!
>
> True.
>

> > Nobody CARES if  SomeModel |=  'this is not derivable from your
> > axioms"

>
> > looks TRUE!
>
> Sure they do.
>

> > IT's not DERIVABLE FROM THE AXIOMS!   END OF STORY!
>
> That's NOT the end of the story!
>
> It is true that the name of the room is "sci.logic" and that WE
> therefore (even if no one else is)
> might be entitled to care about&only about what follows from the
> axioms.  But the PROBLEM is
> that the primary USE for formal proof is IN *MATH*.
> THEREfore, EVEN though the sign on the door says sci.logic, it is
> MATHEMATICIANS
> who matter more.
>
> In the relevant case of models and of |= , the MOST relevant model
> around here is
> N, is THE (true&actual) NATURAL NUMBERS.
> IT DOES matter a WHOLE HECK of a lot if something that is true about N
> is NOT
> formally derivable from some decent (i.e. recursive) set of axioms.
> That is VERY important!
> whatever
> follows from some axioms.  For starters, how would you decide WHICH
> axioms were
> IMPORTANT?  It is NEVER JUST about the axioms themselves!  YOU ALWAYS
> need SOMEthing
> OUTside of logic motivating your investigation!  You are always USING
>

> > Nothing Mathematically INCOMPLETE ABOUT IT!
>
> It is true about all these recursively enumerable formal theories that
> THEY ARE incomplete *ABOUT* N.
> You are sort of right, however, in that first-order-logic ALSO has a
> COMPLETEness theorem.
> A small and reasonable set of rules of inference REALLY IS sufficient
> to derive&prove, formally,
> EVERY theorem that is true in ALL models of the axioms.
> But there is no decent set of axioms or rules that is sufficient to
> derive&prove every (first-order) sentence that is true *in*N*,
> that is true of the natural numbers.  THAT is how FOL gets to have
> BOTH a "completeness" AND an "incompleteness"
> [meta]theorem.
>
> Prolog
> just doesn't have anything to do with this.  Prolog can't even do
> complete FOL.
> Prolog APPROXIMATES first-order negation-AS-failure.
>

See this is the problem.

You just BAFFLE WITH BULLSHIT every assertion made that doesn't match

SomeModel |= this-is-not-derivable-by-axiom-set(A1)

--> A1 is incomplete.

*IF* you had any credible mathematical capacity,
you would ACKNOWLEDGE THE ARGUMENT FIRST.

Your UNPROVABLE THEORY - which is 100 YEARS OLD AND GROWING

is merely SELF-CONSISTENT that is why you ARGUE with ATTACK at the 1st
opportunity because

if the OPPOSITE ASSUMPTION is allowed your entire LIBRARY OF LOGIC
goes up in a puff of smoke.

Herc

Date Subject Author
11/17/12 Graham Cooper
11/17/12 Graham Cooper
11/17/12 Hercules ofZeus
11/17/12 Hercules ofZeus
11/17/12 Graham Cooper
11/17/12 Graham Cooper