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 9:58 PM

On Mar 14, 6:06 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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.? ?
>
>
> > 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?

You can certainly cut and paste it. What exactly are you looking for?

> 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.

1. Ad hoc meaning just thought of now?
3. How do you know that other people believe it is ad hoc?
4. Would it matter if I had posted it 15 years ago and a dozen times
inbetween?
5. Did you read the definition that I gave and repeated with the link
I just gave you?
6. Did you read the FOM discussion of some of the results I mention
here?
7. What do you think of someone who would make disparaging remarks

C-B

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

Did you read the list of theorems?

> 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.

Then why did the authors have to change it after I pointed out the
flaw?

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

How do you know that is the smallest possible?

I can tell you plenty of smaller ones.

> 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.

How could you conceivably know that?

> LHS -> RHS
>
> Try THAT 1st before you attach your initials to the word LOGIC.

Wow.

I just proved a bunch of purported proofs wrong and the authors either
didn't.

"R(r) is not defined so it isn't a concept."

"R(r) is not defined so you can't say (all x) R(x) . . . "

"Frege said concepts must be total functions."

People are quoting known proofs and I am finding flaws such as these,
which they tacitly admit (by rewriting the failed proof or having no

If I saw anyone do that, I know well that's damn good. And when I did
it, Martin Davis approved and defended it.

C-B

> 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