Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Posted:
Feb 21, 2013 3:08 AM
|
|
In <CdmdnXiAA4IeLr7MnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, on 02/19/2013
at 11:16 AM, fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> said:
>They do. But, the nature of identity is treated casually.
By casually do you mean that they did not discuss ontology? IMHO that
would be an issue in a philosophy course, but not in a logic course,
where it's axioms and rules of inference that matter.
>I had written it in a format called WordPerfect
Ouch! Didn't the journal publish requirements for submissions?
>The second paper was submitted to "The Journal of Symbolic Logic".
>I do not believe it had been reviewed at all. The day after
>submission, I received a confirmation email. It addressed me as
>"professor." I had been polite enough to inform them of their
>error. Within 30 minutes I received an angry rejection about
>wasting their time.
Are you sure that the issue was your lack of an academic position?
>Correct. My "stipulation of syntactic equality" is the same as your
>"definition of notation".
The definition of notation gets you formal identities of 1.(0) and
0.(9) to two convergent series; it doesn't give you the proof that
they converge to the same number.
>When I had been badly flamed quite some time ago, the flamer would
>keep insisting that there was no problem with identity
Mathematical or philosophical? From a mathematical perspective all
that matters is the axioms and the rules of inference.
>One has a set of symbols.
What do you mean by symbols? In normal usage the term refers to the
inscriptions appearing in the axioms, not to the universe of
discourse.
>One has a partition on that set of symbols.
See above. Are you referring to a theory or to a model of that theory?
>And, if one is claiming a homomorphism, then one is
>looking at the uniqueness of an induced quotient topology on the
>identification space/decomposition space/quotient space.
You have to start with a topology to have a quotient topology. There
is no need to model theories on topological spaces.
--
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
|
|
|
|
