Date: Mar 22, 2013 8:24 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 3/22/2013 6:40 PM, Virgil wrote:
> In article <1-KdnWUae4shRdHMnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote:
>

>> On 3/22/2013 4:49 PM, WM wrote:
>>>
>>> Fools stay together.
>>>

>>
>> As observed before:
>>
>> Ex(phi(x)) -> Ax(phi(x))
>>
>> is true in Wolkenmuekenheim

>
> And, far too often, so is
>
> Ax(phi(x)) -> Ex(phi(x)).
>



Is that one not always true?

AxP(x) -> P(t)

P(t) -> ExP(x)

are both axiomatic.

That is not your background, however.

One of my objections involving the
failure to distinguish foundational
investigation from other types is
that the body of mathematical statements
used for practical application are
not obtained with free variables in
the premises and do not make assertions
having free variables in the conclusions.

The "actuality" of any mathematical
object in set theory as an instantiated
object only occurs within the proper
interior of a proof since the language
has no individual constants.

Hence, my unhealthy fascination concerning
the role of description theory.