The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology § 224
Replies: 6   Last Post: Apr 16, 2013 2:55 AM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 2,777
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: Matheology § 224
Posted: Apr 16, 2013 2:35 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 16/04/2013 12:28 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote:
> On 16/04/2013 12:06 AM, fom wrote:
>> On 4/16/2013 12:38 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote:
>>> On 15/04/2013 5:38 AM, Alan Smaill wrote:
>>>> Nam Nguyen <> writes:

>>>>> My presentation over the years is that it does _not_ matter
>>>>> what, say, Nam, fom, Frederick, Peter, ... would do to
>>>>> "specify an infinite domain", including IP (Induction Principle),
>>>>> a cost will be exacted on the ability to claim we know, verify,
>>>>> or otherwise prove, in FOL level or in metalogic level.
>>>>> The opponents of the presentation seem to believe that with IP
>>>>> we could go as far as proving/disproving anything assertion,
>>>>> except it would be just a matter of time.

>>>> I haven't seen anyone claim that, and I certainly don't.

>>> They claimed that my claim about the relativity of truth of cGC
>>> would be in vain because like GC, we might _one day_ compute a
>>> counter example, hence the absolute truth value would be
>>> established.
>>> But such reasoning indirectly assumes _there is no statement_
>>> _that is relativistic_ hence my allegation above.

>> Hmm...
>> Explaining that there is a reasonable prior requirement
>> to accept an assertion that a statement is "relative" seems
>> to have fallen on deaf ears (or, in this case, blind eyes).
>> There is a standard that establishes such relativity.
>> It would involve proving the independence
>> of the given statement by demonstrating a model
>> in which it holds and a model in which it fails.

>> Set theory is full of such statements. The literature
>> involving set theory is full of "what ifs" involving
>> independent statements that have been assumed to
>> investigate results which follow from them.

> I'm sorry, fom. If you love to argue for nothing then go
> ahead, but there's no logical reason why I have to listen
> to you.
> I already explained in a conversation with Peter, about isosceles
> triangle, that the mathematical phenomenon of relativity would occur
> in many areas. But in any rate my definition of mathematical relativity
> is _based on incomplete set specification_ , as per my my Def-1 and
> Def-2 which you've kept refusing to consider even though I said
> many times that those definitions are crucial to my thesis about cGC.
> If you don't care to constructively argue here about cGC, and keep
> going back and forth with your irrelevant undecidable-formula kind
> of relativity (in some form) then go ahead. Just don't blame me for
> not being interested.

Would you be able to say why you couldn't respond to Def-1 and Def-2?

Would there be reasons that would hold you back? What are they?

There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.


Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.