On 25 Apr., 19:13, Ralf Bader <ba...@nefkom.net> wrote: > WM wrote: > > 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. > > > or here > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantifier > > In particular see the paragraph about Peter's friends. > > 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.
No? "x likes to go to the beach" is not an abbreviation for "a friend of Peter likes to go to the beach? Aren't you ashamed?
[Another page full of nonsense deleted.]
Why write such a long ado about nothing? Say what is wrong with my use of quantifiers according to your opinion? Can not? Better read Tarski and find your intention? That was to be expected. It is useless to read Tarski with your level of intelligence. Better read Micky Mouse.