On 4/22/2013 12:40 PM, WM wrote: > On 22 Apr., 17:48, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > >> In these newsgroups that has a precise meaning when >> speaking of sets. > > For instance that a sequence is distinct from an ordered set. > Since you do not even know these simple first semester stuff, it is > not surprising that you have failed to obtain any academic degree. And > since failed, you try to improve the feeling of your own value by > reading text in logic without understanding. A common psychological > observation.
The paper I submitted to the Journal of Symbolic Logic had been entitled "The Formal Description of Identity"
It had been rejected when they found I did not have credentials.
Usually, identity is associated with ontology. At the link
you will find that the primitive relation is given by
AxAy(xcy <-> (Az(ycz -> xcz) /\ Ez(xcz /\ -ycz)))
and is irreflexive, asymmetric, and transitive by virtue of that syntax.
If one reads Kant's Transcendental Deduction, one will find the reasoning for considering an ontological theory not using an identity relation as a primitive.
What people do not really understand when they look at my formulations is that the role of a singular term requires more than the purport of singular reference. A foundational theory needs to establish the fact that the purport is faithfully fulfilling the role.
Now, it has been 34 years since my first semester of calculus and I have not had regular social relationships with a mathematical community for close to 30 years. My general skills are very rough right now. To be aware of that actually depresses me at times.
On the other hand, you have no theories and you do actually participate in a mathematically talented community. Your nonsense simply has no legitimate excuse.