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.
--