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 Email subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive Email. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org



