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 <email@example.com> 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.