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: 74   Last Post: Aug 31, 2013 5:15 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Ben Bacarisse Posts: 1,972 Registered: 7/4/07
Re: A finite set of all naturals
Posted: Aug 24, 2013 3:46 PM

Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> writes:

> On 8/24/2013 11:29 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> writes:
>>

>>> On 8/23/2013 4:31 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> writes:
>>>>> On 23/08/2013 1:46 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>>>>>> The example I gave (odd(x) <-> Ey[Sx=2*y]) is clearly positive
>>>>>> according to the definition he gave.

>>>>>
>>>>> But by the same token, I've defined odd(x) in _two different_ classes
>>>>> of languages: one in which odd(x) is positive, one in which odd(x)
>>>>> is negative.
>>>>>
>>>>> End of the story.

>>>>
>>>> Really? The original claim was that odd could not be (positively)
>>>> defined without addition in the context of ordinary Peano arithmetic,
>>>> whereas even could be. Then you changed that to "using only
>>>> multiplication". Then you changed the definition of a positive formula
>>>> twice. Now you are saying your claim is correct provided you get to
>>>> choose the language -- which, as far as I can tell, you have not yet
>>>> specified? You thew in a reference to L(*), but your even predicate
>>>> uses 2. Maybe you meant L(*,S,0)? Who knows?
>>>>
>>>> Remind me of this shifting quicksand the next time you make any claim!

>>>
>>> Not all of Nam's writing is quicksand.
>>>
>>> His conclusion, that even(x) is positive and odd(x) is negative,
>>> remains rock-solid, while the way he reaches that conclusion,
>>> what the conclusion means, and even the language in which
>>> the conclusion is written all flow like water, not quicksand.

>>
>> Blimey, you understand the claim?

>
> I don't see why you think (that I think) I understand the claim.
> Is this some of that "humor" I hear about?
>
> I know what the claim is and so do you. I think I may have some
> insight into Nam himself. I offered that possible insight.

I suspect I've just misread the tone of your message and you are saying
that he starts from a conviction that can never be shaken and hammers
everything else into place round it.

<snip>
--
Ben.

Date Subject Author
8/24/13 Ben Bacarisse
8/24/13 Jim Burns
8/25/13 namducnguyen
8/25/13 fom
8/25/13 Jim Burns
8/25/13 namducnguyen
8/25/13 namducnguyen
8/25/13 fom
8/25/13 namducnguyen
8/25/13 fom
8/26/13 namducnguyen
8/26/13 quasi
8/26/13 namducnguyen
8/26/13 quasi
8/26/13 namducnguyen
8/26/13 quasi
8/26/13 namducnguyen
8/27/13 quasi
8/27/13 namducnguyen
8/27/13 Peter Percival
8/27/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
8/27/13 Peter Percival
8/26/13 Peter Percival
8/26/13 Peter Percival
8/26/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
8/26/13 namducnguyen
8/27/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
8/26/13 Peter Percival
8/26/13 Ben Bacarisse
8/26/13 namducnguyen
8/26/13 Peter Percival
8/26/13 Ben Bacarisse
8/27/13 Peter Percival
8/26/13 fom
8/27/13 Peter Percival
8/30/13 Peter Percival
8/30/13 namducnguyen
8/30/13 Peter Percival
8/30/13 namducnguyen
8/30/13 namducnguyen
8/30/13 Peter Percival
8/30/13 Peter Percival
8/26/13 Peter Percival
8/26/13 Peter Percival
8/30/13 Peter Percival
8/30/13 namducnguyen
8/30/13 fom
8/30/13 namducnguyen
8/30/13 fom
8/30/13 namducnguyen
8/31/13 Peter Percival
8/30/13 fom
8/30/13 namducnguyen
8/31/13 Peter Percival
8/30/13 fom
8/31/13 Peter Percival
8/26/13 Peter Percival
8/26/13 Peter Percival
8/26/13 fom
8/26/13 Peter Percival
8/26/13 Jim Burns
8/26/13 namducnguyen
8/27/13 Peter Percival
8/27/13 Jim Burns
8/27/13 Peter Percival
8/26/13 Peter Percival
8/26/13 fom
8/25/13 Peter Percival
8/25/13 fom
8/25/13 Peter Percival
8/25/13 fom
8/25/13 namducnguyen
8/26/13 Peter Percival