Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University 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 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
|
|
|
|
