> 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.