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

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 ]
Charlie-Boo

Posts: 1,588
Registered: 2/27/06
Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P
rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent

Posted: Mar 15, 2013 12:23 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Mar 14, 11:44 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 15, 11:58 am, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > 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.? ?
>
> > > >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?
>
> > 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?
> > 2. What about it tells you it is ad hoc?
> > 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
> > about something they knew nothing about - and

>
> > 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
> > changed it and proposed another answer or had no answer, and you
> > 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
> > answer).

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

>
> > Go back under your rock.
>
> > C-B
>
> Charlie you know what an INCONSISTENT SYSTEM IS?
>
> YOU!
>
> I'm not joking, somewhere along the line you got your wires crossed
> and every sentence you output you think is PROVABLY TRUE but at the
> heart of all your reasoning somewhere there is a CBL theorem F and a
> CBL theorem ~F that are both true in your fantasy logical world.
>
> This is causing EX-CONTRADICTION-SEQUITUR-QUODLIBET
>
> inside your mind...  you are BLOWING SMOKE!
>
> CBL is not anything usable because CBL is just YOUR BRAIN!
>
> Everyone says  CHARLIE BOO IS WRONG in every single reply to you, but
> you read every reply as everyone saying you are right, please do go
> on!
>
> There is so much nonsense in your head, but you have no clue what

the
> basic meanings of formula, string, true, false, proof, deduction,
> imply, theory, theorem actually mean!
>
> Yet alone language, parse, formal, consistent, meta-mathematics,

set
> theory, axiom, function, predicate...

Can you substantiate anything of what you say?

I have posted to the highly moderated forum Foundations of Mathematics
(FOM) 43 times - every one of them approved by Martin Davis.

How do you spell "idiot"?

C-B

> You are using the street talk slang of clearly defined mathematical
> terms in a vain effort to twist them around and disprove what everyone
> else is saying.
>
> G/L with CBL, but while it is only YOU making deductions via the rules
> of CBL it is not a usable framework for anyone else, it merely assists
> you in saying "I PROVED IT IN CBL SO NA".
>
> HINT:   Get a spreadsheet to go from 1 CBL statement to another!
>
> 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.