> WM wrote: > >> 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. > > Wie blöde darf ein deutscher Professor sein?
LOL, mindestens so blöde wie einer, der Familiengeschichten *) auf auswärts erzählt, um mit WM weitere 10 Jahre in innigem Kontakt zu bleiben - du läufst ihm brav nach und WM lässt dich immer wieder wie einen Trottel, der ihm nachläuft, auflaufen - wer mehr Mathe kann oder wer den auflaufen ist denn nun wirklich weitreichend blöder.