In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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?
Outside of Wolkenmuekenheim it isn't.
And only WM has any notion what goes on inside his miniscule world of Wolkenmuekenheim, --