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 19, 2013 12:54 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Mar 19, 12:27 am, 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:
>
> > > 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?
>
> Well I did choose an arbitrary rubric of defining:
>
> { X | X div 2 = 0 }
>
> since it uses a standard 2 line recursive definition, one of which is
> in the inference rule form.
>
> NOT & AND form a complete BASE of logic gates.
>
> You could use a single logic gate NAND or NOT
>
> but then I would lose NOT() which I need as it stands for FALSE-WFF.
>
>
>

> > I can tell you plenty of smaller ones.
>
> but somehow you cannot just post them.
>
> (<12 lines remember!)


Yes I can. Peano's first 5 axioms (defines the natural numbers.)

C-B

>
>
>
>
>
>

> > > 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.
>
> > > ***************************
>
> This is a variation of modus ponens
>
> tru(R) :- not(and(L,not(R))) , tru(L).
>
> tru(R)  :-  if(L,R) , tru(L).
>
> L
> L->R
> _____
> R
>
> Herc- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -




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.