On 26/02/2013 2:47 PM, Virgil wrote: > In article <pk_Ws.104635$O02.20123@newsfe18.iad>, > Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> wrote: > >> On 26/02/2013 1:16 AM, Virgil wrote: >>> In article <m%XWs.20125$mC2.392@newsfe29.iad>, >>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> On 25/02/2013 10:25 PM, Virgil wrote: >>>>> In article <SDWWs.99982$Hq1.27823@newsfe23.iad>, >>> >>>>> Since I said "not always", any such situation shows I am right. >>>> >>>> I think you misunderstood my point: >>>> >>>> In the context of language structure truth verification, >>>> your original statement would _always_ fail: because for >>>> Ex[P(x)] to be true, P(x0) must be true for some _example_ x0. >>> >>> To know that something must be true for some x0, it need not be known >>> for which x0 it is true, only that it is true for SOME x0. Which was my >>> original point! >> >> Then, can you construct a _language structure_ that would illustrate >> your point? > > It is well known that there is an infinite decimal, > x0, such that x0^2 = 2, but it is not known for which infinite decimal, > x0, it is true.
Could you show me a language structure in which there's such an infinite decimal?
-- ---------------------------------------------------- There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.
