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



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 nonlogical 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



