> On 24 Apr., 23:22, Ralf Bader <ba...@nefkom.net> wrote: > >> > Would you tell me (or at least the curious readers) what you find when >> > "resolving" my abbreviation? >> >> Why should I? > > Because even your fellow-matheologians cannot understand what is wrong > with my statement:
Who said so? Or did they tell you this in private mails because they are afraid of the consequences if they say it in public? Moreover you did not ask what is wrong with your statement. You asked about the phrase "resolving an abbreviation", seemingly finding this phrase inappropriate or not understandable.
>> The curious reader will be able to find the answer himself. > > I doubt that. > >> > When we abbreviate "resolution of the equality x^3 + 1 = 0" by lambda, >> > we can say >> > E lambda, lamda is real. (true) >> >> And this is not the way in which WE use variables and quantifiers.- > > That sounds somewhat different from your original accusation. How > quantifiers are used in mathematics can be found in several books like > mine,
No. A detailed explanation can be found in Tarski's "Einführung in die mathematische Logik", right at the beginning. But not in your book.
Oh yes. "Given the statement, "All of Peters friends either like to dance or like to go to the beach", we can identify key aspects and rewrite using symbols including quantifiers. So, let x be any one particular friend of Peter..." is what I read there. The eplanation of x is slightly ambigous; in fact x is a variable ranging over the set of Peter's friends. That is in accordance with the initial statements of the article: "In logic, quantification is the binding of a variable ranging over a domain of discourse. The variable thereby becomes bound by an operator called a quantifier." But x certainly is not an abbreviation for "friend of Peter", as it would be according to your misguided book. An abbreviation is not a variable.
> Probably that is not the way YOU use to use it. But that is not > tantamount to an error in mathematics or in general use or in my book. > > My proposal: Explain what you find mistaken with my explanation or > admit that you are in error.
You have a long way to go before you are qualified to make proposals. Compared to you, already my little niece (3d grade) is an expert in logic. A while ago her mother quizzed her about some school stuff. The subject was "animals in the forest". First question: What animals are there in the forest? Her answer: Various ones. Next question: Could you give a bit more detail? Examples perhaps? Answer: Squirrels. Stags. Elks. Question: Where should an elk be here (Germany) in the forest? Answer: You asked about animals in the forest and not about animals here in the forest. For you, Mückenheim, learning to express yourself with the accuracy of that 9-year-old girl would be a first great step.