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



Tanu R.
Posts:
640
Registered:
12/13/04


Re: Parameter free x non parameter free definability!
Posted:
Dec 15, 2012 8:33 PM


Virgil write:
> In article > <c9da2cdd0f6f4f9faac83bdf4636d373@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, > WM <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote: > >> On 15 Dez., 20:20, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote: >>> Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> 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 "realnumberness"
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,
Yes...
> 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.



