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: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Replies: 43   Last Post: Feb 22, 2013 10:04 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Posts: 3,473 Registered: 12/4/04
Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Posted: Feb 21, 2013 3:33 AM

In <PO6dnbZX0sYOZr7MnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, on 02/19/2013
at 04:24 PM, fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> said:

>It may not be a great book, but it is what I have.

I don't believe that the problem is in the book. The problem is that
there is no rule of inference allowing you to get from a=a and b=b to
a=b.

>Granted, my illustration was without any rules,

How is it an illustration when it isn't a valid inference?

>Yes. But, in what way?

The constants appear in the axioms of the system; the notational
conventions do not.

>If we sit in a roomful of dogs. And, if I continue
>to refer to "the dog." You will ask, "Which dog?"

Unless you have defined "the dog".

>I say, "THE dog. Of course!" Because you see many dogs in the
>room, it is clear that I am not describing the situation sensibly.

That, however, is not a mathematical issue.

>"self-identical." Constants and singular terms purport to refer to
>individuals.

That's philosophy. A mathematical theory applies to anything that
satisfies the axioms.

>When Dedekind devised his sequence of ordinal numbers,
>he did not "purport" invariance. He formulated a theory based on
>successive involutions. That is, he *modeled* it:
>Definition: A system |N is said to be simply
>infinite when there exists as similar transformation
>F of |N in itself such that |N appears as chain of
>an element not contained in F(|N). We call this
>element, which we shall denote in what follows by
>the symbol '1',

Are you sure that you quoted accurately? In particular, are you sure
that his definition didn't include singling out a specific F?

>Correct. But is that the kind of set theory which had
>originally been envisioned?

Most[1] set theories that came out in the wake of Russell's paradox
either had no universal class or didn't allow the universal class to
be an element.

[1] NF used a different mechanism to avoid the paradox.

--
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

Date Subject Author
2/10/13 fom
2/10/13 J. Antonio Perez M.
2/10/13 fom
2/11/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/11/13 fom
2/14/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/14/13 fom
2/14/13 fom
2/15/13 fom
2/15/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/16/13 fom
2/17/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/19/13 fom
2/21/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/15/13 fom
2/15/13 fom
2/14/13 fom
2/17/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/17/13 fom
2/17/13 Barb Knox
2/18/13 fom
2/19/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/19/13 fom
2/21/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/19/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/19/13 fom
2/21/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/21/13 fom
2/22/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/15/13 fom
2/17/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/17/13 fom
2/19/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/16/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
2/16/13 fom
2/17/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
2/17/13 fom
2/17/13 dan.ms.chaos@gmail.com
2/18/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/20/13 fom
2/21/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/16/13 fom
2/19/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2/19/13 fom