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: Matheology ? 222 Back to the roots
Replies: 3   Last Post: Mar 1, 2013 9:58 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Alan Smaill Posts: 1,103 Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology ? 222 Back to the roots
Posted: Mar 1, 2013 5:11 AM

Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> writes:

> On 28/02/2013 7:51 PM, Virgil wrote:
>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>

>>> On 28/02/2013 8:27 AM, Frederick Williams wrote:
>>>> Nam Nguyen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27/02/2013 10:12 PM, Virgil wrote:

>>>>
>>>>>> The set of all functions from |N = {0,1,2,3,...} to {0,1,2,...,9} with
>>>>>> each f interpreted as Sum _(i in |N) f(i)/10^1, defines such a
>>>>>> structure..

>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't look like a structure to me. Could you put all what
>>>>> you've said above into a form using the notations of a structure?

>>>>
>>>> There is a set and a collection of functions on it. How does it fail to
>>>> be a structure?

>>>
>>> From what textbook did you learn that a structure is defined as
>>> "a set and a collection of functions on it"?

>>
>> Then give us your textbook definition of structure and show why the
>> above fails to meet it.

>
> Shoenfield, Section 2.5 "Structures". One reason the above fails is,
> you don't define, construct, the predicate (set) for the symbol '^'.

Who said that that is a predicate here?

> And that's just 1 reason amongst others. Do you admit it now that
> the above fails to meet the requirements of a language structure?

It fits with Shoenfield in the case where the only predicate
is equality.

--
Alan Smaill

Date Subject Author
3/1/13 Alan Smaill
3/1/13 namducnguyen