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: I Bet \$25 to your \$1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent

Replies: 20   Last Post: Mar 19, 2013 1:32 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Charlie-Boo Posts: 1,635 Registered: 2/27/06
Re: I Bet \$25 to your \$1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent

Posted: Mar 14, 2013 1:07 PM

On Mar 13, 11:36 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 8:25 am, Jan Burse <janbu...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Graham Cooper schrieb:
>
> > > On Mar 13, 4:09 am, Charlie-Boo<shymath...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> > >> >1. Tarski: Truth is not expressible.
>
> > Actually the above is true I guess. It is the
> > content of Tarski's undefinability theorem:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem

>
> > I think the usual meaning of "truth" is
> > to be true in some intended model. So
> > you have some model M, and some sentence
> > A, and you want to know whether M[A]=1.

>
> > Truth is not expressible means there are
> > some intended models, where M[A]=1 is not
> > formalizable as far as M[A]=1 could be a
> > derivation from axioms and inference rules.

>
> > Right?
>
> > This doesn't mean that you Graham Cooper,
> > with your Prolog, cannot derive some
> > truths. But you will not be able to derive
> > all truths.

>
> > Right?
>
> > Bye
>
> You can't agree with this sentence right?
>
> That sentence is true right?
>
> So your chimpanzee is smarter than you right?
>
> If TRUE(x)  doesn't work, what is NOT(NOT(x)) ??
>
> ------------------------------
>
> TRUTH TABLE
> and(X,Y)            :- tru(X),tru(Y).
> and(X,not(Y))       :- tru(X),not(Y).
> and(not(X),Y)       :- not(X),tru(Y).
> and(not(X),not(Y))  :- not(X),not(Y).
>
> INFERENCE RULE
> not(and( even(X) , not(even(s(s(X)))) )).
>
> MODUS PONENS
> tru(R) :- not(and(L,not(R))) , tru(L).
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> this will actually work out that   s(s(s(s(0)))) e EVENS
>
> not(....)   will match inference rules
>
> tru(....)    will match proof methods
>
> ----------------------------------
>
> In a formal system
> THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
>
> theorem(X)
> true(X)
> proof(X)
>
> they are just RULES OF DERIVATION
>
> GODELSTATEMENT <->  NOT(PROOF(GODELSTATEMENT))

Yo.

> GODELSTATEMENT <-> NOT(GODELSTATEMENT)

iX-nay. LIARSTATEMENT <-> NOT(LIARSTATEMENT)

C-B

> ------------
>
> PROOF(X)  <-> NOT(NOT(X))
>
> TRUE(X) <-> NOT(NOT(X))
>
> THEOREM(X) <-> NOT(NOT(X))
>
> T-WFF(X) <-> NOT(NOT(X))
>
> Herc
>
> --www.BLoCKPROLOG.com

Date Subject Author
3/13/13 Graham Cooper
3/13/13 Graham Cooper
3/14/13 Charlie-Boo
3/14/13 Charlie-Boo
3/14/13 Graham Cooper
3/14/13 Charlie-Boo
3/14/13 Graham Cooper
3/14/13 Charlie-Boo
3/14/13 Graham Cooper
3/15/13 Charlie-Boo
3/19/13 Graham Cooper
3/19/13 Charlie-Boo
3/19/13 Charlie-Boo
3/15/13 Graham Cooper
3/15/13 Charlie-Boo
3/15/13 Graham Cooper
3/19/13 Charlie-Boo