Date: Feb 26, 2013 4:47 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology ? 222 Back to the roots
In article <pk_Ws.104635$O02.20123@newsfe18.iad>,

Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> wrote:

> On 26/02/2013 1:16 AM, Virgil wrote:

> > In article <m%XWs.20125$mC2.392@newsfe29.iad>,

> > Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> wrote:

> >

> >> On 25/02/2013 10:25 PM, Virgil wrote:

> >>> In article <SDWWs.99982$Hq1.27823@newsfe23.iad>,

> >

> >>> Since I said "not always", any such situation shows I am right.

> >>

> >> I think you misunderstood my point:

> >>

> >> In the context of language structure truth verification,

> >> your original statement would _always_ fail: because for

> >> Ex[P(x)] to be true, P(x0) must be true for some _example_ x0.

> >

> > To know that something must be true for some x0, it need not be known

> > for which x0 it is true, only that it is true for SOME x0. Which was my

> > original point!

>

> Then, can you construct a _language structure_ that would illustrate

> your point?

It is well known that there is an infinite decimal,

x0, such that x0^2 = 2, but it is not known for which infinite decimal,

x0, it is true.

--