Date: Feb 10, 2013 3:38 AM
Author: Graham Cooper
Subject: Re: This is False. 0/0 {x | x ~e x} e {x | x ~e x} A single Principle<br> to Resolve Several Paradoxes
On Feb 10, 5:47 pm, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:

> On 2/9/2013 6:19 PM, Charlie-Boo wrote:

>

> > On Feb 7, 1:51 am, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:

>

> >> How do you see Logic and Set Theory as being the same?

>

> > Both are concerned with mappings to {true,false}. A propositional

> > calculus proposition is 0-place. A set is 1-place. A relation is any

> > number of places. (A relation is a set - of tuples.)

>

> > So you have the same rules of inference: Double Negative, DeMorgan

> > etc. apply to propositions and sets.

>

> > To prove incompleteness, Godel had to generalize wffs as expressing

> > propositions to expressing sets when the wff has a free variable.

>

> Hmm...

>

> This is naive set theory (which you have stated

> as being fine with your views).

>

> I view set theory as being about the existence

> of mathematical objects. Naive set theory failed,

> in part, because of something in Aristotle--do not

> negate "substance". Do not get me wrong. I am

> not planning to run out and buy a number 2 while

> I pick up my next Turing machine....

>

> The problem, however, is that the connection of

> mathematics to any metaphysical truth (if such

> a statement can be sensible) requires that the

> objects represented in physics books (material

> objects) correspond with some sort of mathematical

> notion. So, while mathematics is abstract,

> there must be some sort of interpretation that

> accounts for its apparent ability to model

> real-world situations.

>

> Either physics is a collection of mathematical

> hallucinations or there is a better explanation

> of set theory.

>

Right! the physical world cannot contravene the platonic, so a set of

truths may exist and a set of lies not...

** in Plato land where (angle1+angle2+angle3=pi) **

it's the 1 metaphysics principle I subscribe to!

I think LOGIC is just applying MODUS PONENS.

backwards to axioms

a1

\

theorem ?

/

a2

forwards to contradictions

x

/

~theorem

\

~x

Naive set theory should be able to cope with a SUBSET of WFF that have

been sieved through various checks. if you can formulate what the

real world contradiction is, it can be unstratified.

Herc

--

www.BLoCKPROLOG.com