The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Parameter free x non parameter free definability!
Replies: 5   Last Post: Dec 16, 2012 1:29 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Tanu R.

Posts: 640
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: Parameter free x non parameter free definability!
Posted: Dec 15, 2012 8:33 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Virgil write:

> In article
> <>,
> WM <> wrote:

>> On 15 Dez., 20:20, Aatu Koskensilta <> wrote:
>>> Zuhair <> writes:
>>> > YOU are the one who doesn't understand what is written. I just used a
>>> > SINGLE formula having a SINGLE parameter. It seems you are having
>>> > difficulty in Knowing that for example the formula (y in A & pi(y))
>>> > where pi(y) is a finite formula that have NO parameters, is a finite
>>> > formula that has ONE parameter, and that parameter is A. You are
>>> > confusing how many values A can range over for how many symbols A
>>> > occurs in the above formula. That's really bad.

>>>   If we allow arbitrary parameters every set A is definable,

>> If we allow to use all real numbers all real numbers are definable by
>> let r be any real number.

> Each real number must be testable for "real-numberness"

Or Else Mind The Cheriff!

> in order to define the set of them.

Or Else Mind The Cheriff!

> But that does not mean one has to know WHICH real number one has.

So IT has THEM...

> We can,


> for instance, determine that what we have is a Dedekind cut

Can it.

> without knowing which Dedekind cut we have.

Right. I love it.

> Or that we have an equivalence class of Cauchy sequences without
> knowing which one.

OR me.

> And so on.

Ya ored ma.

>> But why should we define them if they are
>> part of the definition.

> Only in WMytheology are they part of the definition.

>> And what kind of definition would that be?
> One which only WM would ever use.

>> This quality may be sufficient for matheology, but not for
>> mathematics.

> Its your own WMytheology, WM, so only you can speak for it!

I hope WM will take the pills mankind did invend to help him out a time.
And a hand.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.