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



Re: Matheology § 224
Posted:
Apr 16, 2013 2:55 AM


On 16/04/2013 12:35 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote: > 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?
I hope you understand I have good reasons to stay away from quite a lot of what you've said: _I have to defend_ my presentations and if one keeps bringing up issues that aren't clearly relevant to what I'm defending then most likely I have to ignore that.
  There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.
NYOGEN SENZAKI 



