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

----------------------------------------------------