Date: Mar 22, 2013 10:09 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224
In article <FImdnfw3_ePXa9HMnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,

fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote:

> 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)

Couldn't Ax(phi(x)) be true when Ex(phi(x)) isn't?

E.G.,

All four sided triangles have less than three sides.

and

There is a four sided triangle having less than three sides.

> 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.

--