Date: Feb 27, 2013 10:27 PM
Author: namducnguyen
Subject: Re: Matheology ? 222 Back to the roots

On 26/02/2013 2:47 PM, Virgil wrote:
> 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.


Could you show me a language structure in which there's such an infinite
decimal?

--
----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

NYOGEN SENZAKI
----------------------------------------------------