Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: at the background of logic
Replies: 5   Last Post: Jun 13, 2013 7:52 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 William Elliot Posts: 2,637 Registered: 1/8/12
Re: at the background of logic
Posted: Jun 13, 2013 4:25 AM

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Zuhair wrote:

> I think that all logical connectives, quantifiers and identity are
> derivable from a simple semi-formal inference rule denoted by "|" to
> represent "infers" and this is not to be confused with the Sheffer
> stroke nor any known logical connective.
>
> A| C can be taken to mean the "negation of A"
>
> A,B| A can be taken to mean the "conjunction of A and B"

Requires both that and A,B| B.

> x| phi(x) can be taken to mean: for all x. phi(x)

Confusion of propositions and objects.

> x, phi(y)| phi(x) can be taken to mean: x=y

It can?

> The idea is that with the first case we an arbitrary proposition C is
> inferred from A, this can only be always true if A was False, otherwise we
> cannot infer an "arbitrary" proposition from it.

> Similarly with the second case A to be inferred from A,B then both of
> those must be true.
>
> Also with the third condition to infer that for some constant
> predicate phi it is true that given x we infer phi(x) only happens if
> phi(x) is true for All x.

What's a constant predicate?

> With the fourth case for an 'arbitrary' predicate phi if phi(y) is
> true and given x we infer that phi(x) is true, then x must be
> identical to y.

Confusion unto Jabberwocky gibberish.

> Anyhow the above kind of inference is somewhat vague really, it needs
> to be further scrutinized.

The confusion of predicates and objects is a know failure.

Date Subject Author
6/12/13 Zaljohar@gmail.com
6/12/13 Peter Percival
6/13/13 Zaljohar@gmail.com
6/13/13 Peter Percival
6/13/13 William Elliot
6/13/13 Peter Percival