Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

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

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Graham Cooper

Posts: 4,263
Registered: 5/20/10
Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent

Posted: Mar 14, 2013 6:06 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply


> > Really Charlie your CHARADES have gone on long enough!
>
> > YOU CANNOT SHOW US 1 SYSTEM THAT IS INCONSISTENT
>
> > by the terminology you are making up.
>
> > ----------------
>
> > If you have no USE for the word INCONSISTENT (THEORY)
>
>  >  then say so, and we can stop wasting our time discussing set
> theory
>  >  with you.
>
> With me?  That'll be the day.
>
>
>

> > -------------
>
>  >  WAGER:  I will paypal CHARLIE BOO $25
>
>  >  if he can prove ANY theory at all is inconsistent!
>
> Didn?t I say ?CBL proves Hilbert impossible.? ?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/3bc441b51ffe6455?hl=en
>
> So you want a formal proof  in CBL that Hilbert?s Programme is
> inconsistent or some arbitrary set of typical set axioms is
> inconsistent?
>
> C-B
>



Machine parsable proof ok with you?

CBL, as far as I and anyone here can see,
is a bunch of AD-HOC guidelines on reasoning
about high level hypothetical meta-logic.

It is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of a Formal System.

Mentioning some VAGUE REFERENCE about MODUS PONENS used in REAL FORMAL
SYSTEMS by just making jokes is NOT substitution for CBL
functionality.

Hand waving away every argument for 3 weeks is NOT justification of
any assertion you've made here - NOTHING you've said has been backed
up COLLOQUIALLY yet alone FORMALLY.

**********


Though not complete in any sense, this is the
SMALLEST FORMAL SYSTEM possible - 12 lines of PROLOG.


tru(t).
not(f).
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).
even(0).
not(and( even(X) , not(even(s(s(X)))) )).
e(A, evens) :- tru(even(A)).
tru(even(X)) :- even(X).
tru(e(A,S)) :- e(A,S).
tru(R) :- not(and(L,not(R))) , tru(L).
**************************


by using a small subset of boolean input predicates (and, not)

You can enter this command into any PROLOG software

?- tru( e( s(s(s(s(0)))) , evens )).

YES

[4 e EVENS] is a Theorem.

***************************

NOBODY in ANY maths department, newsgroup, book publishing house,
expert software design house, university faculty lounge, high school
maths class, fruit shop, hen house, dog house or Zuhair's scribble pad
is going to follow one single deduction in CBL, yet alone accept it as
a FORMAL PROOF.

LHS -> RHS

Try THAT 1st before you attach your initials to the word LOGIC.



Herc
--
www.BLoCKPROLOG.com


Date Subject Author
3/13/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Graham Cooper
3/13/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Graham Cooper
3/14/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Charlie-Boo
3/14/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Charlie-Boo
3/14/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Graham Cooper
3/14/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Charlie-Boo
3/14/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Graham Cooper
3/14/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Charlie-Boo
3/14/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Graham Cooper
3/15/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Charlie-Boo
3/19/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Graham Cooper
3/19/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Charlie-Boo
3/19/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Charlie-Boo
3/15/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Graham Cooper
3/15/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Charlie-Boo
3/15/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Graham Cooper
3/19/13
Read Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Charlie-Boo

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.