Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: when indecomposability is decomposable
Posted:
Feb 17, 2013 11:03 AM
|
|
In <88qdnU1ZNsB9j4LMnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@giganews.com>, on 02/15/2013
at 11:02 PM, fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> said:
>When one invokes the axiom,
>Ax(x=x)
>by
>a=a
>there is an ontological interpretation of the
>sign of equality corresponding with the sense
>of indecomposability.
I don't see how it is either omtological or indecomposable. The
inference is valid regardless of how you model "=".
>Of course, mathematicians generally do not know
>of description theory.
Is that true? I'd buy the claim that for most mathematicians it is not
relevant to their sphere of interest.
>That is, when one presupposes
>the ontological interpretation that gives
>rise to the necessity of
>|- (x=y -> Az(zex <-> zey))
Isn't that a special case of a more general axiom schema? For any
propositional function P of two variables, |- (x=y -> Az(P)z,x) >->
P(z,y))
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
|
|
|
|
