
Re: Matheology S 224
Posted:
Apr 14, 2013 4:30 PM


On 14/04/2013 12:51 PM, Peter Percival wrote: > Nam Nguyen wrote: > >> The difficulty in the Mx quantifier is actually a reflection on the >> need of introducing to FOL new logical quantifiers: >> >>  Ix (There are infinitely many x's) >>  Fx (There are finitely many x's) > > So called "generalized quantifiers" have been studied. Mostowski comes > to mind. > >> And of one of the new "AntiInference" rules is: >> >>  From Fx one shall _not_ infer Ex. > > And Lukasiewicz used rules of rejection. > > So that'll be two more diversions to keep you from proving you claim > about cGC and ~cGC being unknowable.
For the record, let me just say that you owe me a closure on my Def1 and Def2 about some F' being "relativistic" (see below) _before your_ _recent 2 posts_ .
I asked you more than once and you never bring a closure on the concept of setmembership truth relativity which my entire presentation would rest on.
If you don't keep your side of the bargain, why should I spend time responding to you further?
So, I won't respond to your requests until you finish what _you_ yourself started.
A relevant conversation between Peter and Nam:
Nam:
>> Would you or would you not understand, in that example, that >> the truth of a F' is relativistic as defined there? > Peter:
> An example is not the same as a definition. An example may help to > explain a definition but it cannot stand in place of a definition.
  There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.
NYOGEN SENZAKI 

