Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.



Re: Matheology § 224
Posted:
Apr 16, 2013 2:35 AM


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 <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> 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 Def1 and > Def2 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 undecidableformula 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 Def1 and Def2?
Would there be reasons that would hold you back? What are they?
  There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.
NYOGEN SENZAKI 



