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: A finite set of all naturals
Replies: 7   Last Post: Aug 24, 2013 2:44 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 namducnguyen Posts: 2,777 Registered: 12/13/04
Re: A finite set of all naturals
Posted: Aug 24, 2013 2:07 AM

On 23/08/2013 11:48 PM, Peter Percival wrote:
> Nam Nguyen wrote:
>> On 23/08/2013 8:59 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>>>
>>> How is 2 defined in L2(*)? What are the axioms for *? Don't both
>>> use S?

>>
>> _Here_ I was merely clarifying the relativity (the language dependence)
>> of "positivity"/"negativity" of non-logical formulas in general, and not
>> attempting to define something specific such as 2.

>
> Is it sensible to talk about language and not specify what the language
> is?

For the record, when I defined 2 outside the context of 'S', I did
specify a full language in which L(*) is a part of. I've just mentioned
that language to you, so I don't know what you're talking about here.

> Note that it is even worse if you are talking about two languages.

"Worse" in what way?

It's a trivial observation that most of the times, we have to talk
about two different languages. Don't you know that? Why "worse" then?

> It your claim about the truth value of cGC about expressions in some
> particular language? If so, which language?

Not that I didn't let people know the language cGC is written in
_multiple of times_ what does your question here have to do with the
issue that odd(x) can't be expressed positively in L(0,<,*), which you
have not acknowledged, or have not been able to acknowledge?

--
-----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

NYOGEN SENZAKI

Date Subject Author
8/23/13 Ben Bacarisse
8/23/13 namducnguyen
8/24/13 Peter Percival
8/24/13 namducnguyen
8/24/13 Peter Percival
8/24/13 namducnguyen