Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Topic: This is False. 0/0 {x | x ~e x} e {x | x ~e x} A single Principle

Replies: 53   Last Post: Feb 13, 2013 3:53 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Graham Cooper Posts: 4,495 Registered: 5/20/10
Re: This is False. 0/0 {x | x ~e x} e {x | x ~e x} A single Principle

Posted: Feb 10, 2013 3:38 AM

On Feb 10, 5:47 pm, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> On 2/9/2013 6:19 PM, Charlie-Boo wrote:
>

> > On Feb 7, 1:51 am, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>
> >> How do you see Logic and Set Theory as being the same?
>
> > Both are concerned with mappings to {true,false}.  A propositional
> > calculus proposition is 0-place.  A set is 1-place.  A relation is any
> > number of places.  (A relation is a set - of tuples.)

>
> > So you have the same rules of inference: Double Negative, DeMorgan
> > etc. apply to propositions and sets.

>
> > To prove incompleteness, Godel had to generalize wffs as expressing
> > propositions to expressing sets when the wff has a free variable.

>
> Hmm...
>
> This is naive set theory (which you have stated
> as being fine with your views).
>
> I view set theory as being about the existence
> of mathematical objects.  Naive set theory failed,
> in part, because of something in Aristotle--do not
> negate "substance".  Do not get me wrong.  I am
> not planning to run out and buy a number 2 while
> I pick up my next Turing machine....
>
> The problem, however, is that the connection of
> mathematics to any metaphysical truth (if such
> a statement can be sensible) requires that the
> objects represented in physics books (material
> objects) correspond with some sort of mathematical
> notion.  So, while mathematics is abstract,
> there must be some sort of interpretation that
> accounts for its apparent ability to model
> real-world situations.
>
> Either physics is a collection of mathematical
> hallucinations or there is a better explanation
> of set theory.
>

Right! the physical world cannot contravene the platonic, so a set of
truths may exist and a set of lies not...

** in Plato land where (angle1+angle2+angle3=pi) **

it's the 1 metaphysics principle I subscribe to!

I think LOGIC is just applying MODUS PONENS.

backwards to axioms

a1
\
theorem ?
/
a2

x
/
~theorem
\
~x

Naive set theory should be able to cope with a SUBSET of WFF that have
been sieved through various checks. if you can formulate what the
real world contradiction is, it can be unstratified.

Herc
--
www.BLoCKPROLOG.com

Date Subject Author
2/1/13 Graham Cooper
2/3/13 Charlie-Boo
2/3/13 Graham Cooper
2/3/13 Charlie-Boo
2/3/13 Graham Cooper
2/3/13 Graham Cooper
2/3/13 Charlie-Boo
2/3/13 Graham Cooper
2/3/13 Charlie-Boo
2/3/13 camgirls@hush.com
2/4/13 Charlie-Boo
2/4/13 billh04
2/4/13 Charlie-Boo
2/4/13 William Hale
2/4/13 Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
2/9/13 Graham Cooper
2/5/13 Charlie-Boo
2/4/13 Graham Cooper
2/5/13 Charlie-Boo
2/5/13 Graham Cooper
2/5/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
2/6/13 Graham Cooper
2/6/13 Charlie-Boo
2/4/13 fom
2/4/13 Charlie-Boo
2/4/13 fom
2/5/13 Charlie-Boo
2/7/13 fom
2/9/13 Charlie-Boo
2/9/13 Graham Cooper
2/11/13 Charlie-Boo
2/10/13 fom
2/10/13 Graham Cooper
2/10/13 fom
2/10/13 Graham Cooper
2/11/13 Charlie-Boo
2/11/13 Charlie-Boo
2/11/13 Charlie-Boo
2/11/13 Graham Cooper
2/13/13 Charlie-Boo
2/11/13 Charlie-Boo
2/11/13 fom
2/5/13 Charlie-Boo
2/5/13 fom
2/6/13 fom
2/11/13 Charlie-Boo
2/11/13 fom
2/13/13 Charlie-Boo
2/13/13 fom
2/4/13 Graham Cooper
2/4/13 Charlie-Boo
2/5/13 Charlie-Boo