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.