Date: Mar 1, 2013 1:54 AM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology ? 222 Back to the roots
In article <lRXXs.97523$Ln.54803@newsfe22.iad>,

Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> wrote:

> On 28/02/2013 11:15 PM, Virgil wrote:

> > In article <G8VXs.46028$Q91.31634@newsfe26.iad>,

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

> >

> >> On 28/02/2013 7:51 PM, Virgil wrote:

> >>> In article <khUXs.345339$pV4.177097@newsfe21.iad>,

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

> >>>

> >>>> On 28/02/2013 8:27 AM, Frederick Williams wrote:

> >>>>> Nam Nguyen wrote:

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> On 27/02/2013 10:12 PM, Virgil wrote:

> >>>>>>> In article <R8AXs.345282$pV4.85998@newsfe21.iad>,

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> The set of all functions from |N = {0,1,2,3,...} to {0,1,2,...,9} with

> >>>>>>> each f interpreted as Sum _(i in |N) f(i)/10^1, defines such a

> >>>>>>> structure..

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> That doesn't look like a structure to me. Could you put all what

> >>>>>> you've said above into a form using the notations of a structure?

> >>>>>

> >>>>> There is a set and a collection of functions on it. How does it fail to

> >>>>> be a structure?

> >>>>

> >>>> From what textbook did you learn that a structure is defined as

> >>>> "a set and a collection of functions on it"?

> >>>

> >>> Then give us your textbook definition of structure and show why the

> >>> above fails to meet it.

> >>

> >> Shoenfield, Section 2.5 "Structures". One reason the above fails is,

> >> you don't define, construct, the predicate (set) for the symbol '^'.

> >>

> >> And that's just 1 reason amongst others. Do you admit it now that

> >> the above fails to meet the requirements of a language structure?

> >

> > No, though it may not satisfy your requirements, it satisfies mine well

> > enough to go on with.

> >

> > Sci.math is not as formal as Principia Mathematica.

>

> Then a) you should have removed "sci.logic" from the list,

> and b) should not have asked me to "give us your textbook definition

> of structure and show why the above fails to meet it". You asked

> for it and I've answered it: and you were wrong in your original

> statement.

Only in your opinion.

--