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: Matheology § 224
Replies: 84   Last Post: Apr 20, 2013 4:43 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 2,677
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: Matheology S 224
Posted: Apr 14, 2013 4:40 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 14/04/2013 9:19 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote:
> On 14/04/2013 12:44 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote:
>> On 13/04/2013 7:10 PM, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>>
>> Now that that has been spelled out, however unnecessarily, what's next?
>>
>> Can you or they give me a straightforward statement of understanding
>> or not understanding of Def-1, Def-2, F, F' I've requested?
>>

>
> I don't remember if I asked Chris Menzel directly or he might have just
> been in the post, but once (iirc) I wondered if there is a way to
> express something like "There are infinitely many individuals" _without_
> any non-logical symbols.
>
> I did define the "Mx (Many quantifier) and 0x (Null quantifier)" in:
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/8fd316ddcfc09e5c?hl=en
>
> <quote>
>
> (1) Mx[P(x)] df= There exist more than one x such that P(x).
> (2) 0x[P(x)] df= There exists no x such that P(x).
>
> </quote>
>
> And in the post:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.ai.philosophy/msg/58615203416c4d7e?hl=en
>
>
> I did define:
>
> - The "I-form (Inductive) of infinity expression":
>
> (I)P(*) <-> Ex[P(x)] /\ AxEy[P(x) -> (P(y) /\ Ez(y = x + Sz))]
>
> - The "aI-form (anti-Inductive) of infinity expression":
>
> (aI)P(*) <-> Ex[P(x)] /\ AxEy[P(x) -> (P(y) /\ (x < y))]
>
> The long and short of it I've been frustrated that the Many Quantifier
> Mx doesn't make a lot of logical sense: how many should be logically
> considered as "many"? But now I see in Mx and 0x (The Null quantifier)
> a quite relevancy to the relativity of the truth values of cGC and its
> negation ~cGC.
>
> 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)
>
> Where some of the _traditional_ rules of inference on these two new
> quantifiers are:
>
> - Ix <-> ~Fx /\ Fx <-> ~Ix
> - Ix -> Ex.
>
> And of one of the new "Anti-Inference" rules is:
>
> - From Fx one shall _not_ infer Ex.
>
> More properties and rules might be forwarded, but these definitions
> will bring more crisp the reasons why the there exists the relativity
> of the truth values of cGC and its negation ~cGC
>
> [To be continued ...]


Apropos out of nothing, the caveat here is that the issue of the
relativity of the truth value of cGC in the naturals is an _independent_
issue from the suggested new FOL with the 2 new quantifiers Ix and Fx.

And one doesn't have to discuss about these 2 new quantifier in
discussing the issue of cGC.

--
----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

NYOGEN SENZAKI
----------------------------------------------------


Date Subject Author
4/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
Alan Smaill
4/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
namducnguyen
4/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
Frederick Williams
4/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
fom
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
namducnguyen
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
fom
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
namducnguyen
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
fom
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
namducnguyen
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
Peter Percival
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
namducnguyen
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
Peter Percival
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
namducnguyen
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
Peter Percival
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
namducnguyen
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
Jesse F. Hughes
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
Peter Percival
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
fom
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
fom
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
fom
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
Jesse F. Hughes
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
Jesse F. Hughes
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/16/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/16/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/16/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
Jesse F. Hughes
4/16/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/16/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
fom
4/17/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/17/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
fom
4/17/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/17/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
Jesse F. Hughes
4/17/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
Jesse F. Hughes
4/17/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/20/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/17/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
Frederick Williams
4/17/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
Frederick Williams
4/17/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
fom
4/17/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
Frederick Williams
4/17/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
fom
4/17/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
fom
4/18/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/18/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
Frederick Williams
4/18/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/19/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
Frederick Williams
4/19/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/20/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
Frederick Williams
4/19/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
Frederick Williams
4/19/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/20/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
Frederick Williams
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
Jesse F. Hughes
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
Jesse F. Hughes
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
namducnguyen
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology S 224
Peter Percival
4/15/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
Peter Percival
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
namducnguyen
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
namducnguyen
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
Frederick Williams
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
Peter Percival
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
Peter Percival
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
namducnguyen
4/15/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
Peter Percival
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
fom
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
namducnguyen
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
Peter Percival
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
namducnguyen
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
Frederick Williams
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
Frederick Williams
4/14/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
namducnguyen
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
Peter Percival
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
namducnguyen
4/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 224
namducnguyen

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.