Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
A finite set of all naturals
Replies:
7
Last Post:
Aug 24, 2013 2:44 AM




Re: A finite set of all naturals
Posted:
Aug 23, 2013 10:59 AM


Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> writes:
> On 23/08/2013 7:49 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> quasi <quasi@null.set> writes: >> >>> Peter Percival wrote: >>>> Nam Nguyen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I certainly meant "odd(x) can _NOT_ be defined as a >>>>> positive formula ...". >>>> >>>> Prove it. >>> >>> With Nam's new definition of positive/negative, I think >>> it's immediately provable (subject to some clarification as >>> to what a formula is) that odd(x) is a negative formula. >>> >>> Let even(x) <> Ey(x=2*y). >>> >>> Assuming Nam's definition of "formula" supports the claim >>> that even(x) is a positive formula, then odd(x) must be >>> a negative formula since odd(x) is equivalent to ~even(x). >> >> That does not match my reading of the new definition. It states that a >> formula is positive if it can be written in a particular form. That >> odd(x) can be written in at least one form that does not match the >> requirements for positivity does not mean that it can't be. >> >> My first counter example, odd(x) <> Ey[Sx=2*y] seems to me to be to as >> positive as Nam's version of even, > > Right. But remember that odd(x) is a _non logical_ expression, hence > it does matter (on it being positive or negative) whether or not, say, > 'S' is part of a language. > > In the language L1(S,*), both even(x) <> Ey(x=2*y) and odd(x) <> > Ey[Sx=2*y] are positive, while in L2(*), only even(x) would be.
How is 2 defined in L2(*)? What are the axioms for *? Don't both use S?
<snip>  Ben.



