Date: Jan 12, 2013 8:14 PM
Author: camgirls@hush.com
Subject: Re: Finitely definable reals.
On Jan 11, 7:16 pm, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lets say that a real r is finitely definable iff there is a predicate

> P that is describable by a Finitary formula that is uniquely satisfied

> by r.

>

> Formally speaking:

>

> r is finitely definable <-> Exist P for all y. (P(y) <-> y=r)

>

> where of course P(y) is a Finitary formula.

>

> Of course NOT all reals are finitely definable in the above manner.

> This is an obvious corollary of Cantor's arguments of uncountability

> of reals.

>

> Also it is obvious that we have only COUNTABLY many finitely definable

> reals.

>

> Other kinds of reals can be "infinitely" definable, this can be

> achieved in a language that encounters infinitely long strings of

> symbols, and many known first order languages are of that sort and

> they are proven to be consistent and even supportive of a proof

> system.

What rubbish!

MODUS PONENS would not be able to make a single deduction.

This is where Mathematics went to Fairy land.

*CONTINUOUS LOGIC* Ask FRED THE FAGGOT HERE!

Take the powerset of ANYTHING (even True/False formula)

and just like the POWERSET(N) makes the continuous REALS!

You get CONTINOUS LOGIC FORMULA! <<<< ???

If you can REASON about infinitary formula THEN you already have an

alternate finite representation for them.

Herc