Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can¹t Pr
ove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Posted:
Feb 17, 2013 9:03 PM
|
|
On Feb 17, 7:16 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 10:07 am, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 5:59 pm, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > That is NOT a real question. Real questions about math have exactly
> > > > > zero to do with money.
>
> > > > But all questions about money have lots to do with math:
>
> > > SO WHAT? THAT IS NOT the issue under discussion!
> > > I *SAID* that the questions about math had nothing to do with money!
> > > I DID NOT SAY anything about questions about MONEY!
>
> > > debt,
>
> > > > interest rates - because, after all, money is the formalization of
> > > > work.
> > > > > More to the point, this is no more a "question" than "how much is
> > > > > 2+2?".
> > > > False assumption.
>
> > > Liar. I HAVEN'T MADE any assumptions here.
>
> > > > You have no proof.
>
> > > Liar.
> > > I CITED a proof. YOU CAN GOOGLE tons of proofs. If you were NOT
> > > STUPID then
> > > YOU could state a proof.
>
> > > > The Frege-Russell argument is flawed.
>
> > > So what??
> > > The argument that no binary relation has an element in its domain that
> > > bears the relation to
> > > all and only those things that don't bear it to themselves IS NOT
> > > flawed!
> > > It just requires YOU -- YOU -- to answer the question, "OK, if we DO
> > > have such an element,
> > > does it bear the relation TO ITSELF, OR NOT?"
>
> > > > If you actually produced an attempted proof here, you would see.
>
> > > Jeez; get over yourself.
> > > I JUST PRESENTED a proof, YET YOU do not see.
> > > Some forms of stupid apparently cannot be fixed.
>
> > If you present a valid proof here (before your cohorts) then you win
> > the $25. Otherwise you're going to have to cough up a buck.
>
> > C-B
>
> You merely deny a machine parsed proof of exactly what you asked for.
>
> > Axiom. If P(x) is a predicate with one and only one free variable
> > x, then {x | P(x)} is a set.
>
> [CB]
> Sure.
>
> 1
> LET
> P(x) <-> not(X e X)
>
> 2
> {x|P(X)} is a set
>
> 3
> X e rusl <-> P(X)
>
> 4
> X e rusl <-> not(X e X)
>
> 5
> not(X e X) -> X e rusl
> AND
> X e rusl -> not(X e X)
>
> 6
> *** RUSSELLS SET ***
> if( not(e(X,X)) , e(X,rusl) ).
> if( e(X,rusl) , not(e(X,X)) ).
>
> 7
> ?- t( not(e(rusl,rusl)) , z(1) ).
> YES
> ?- t( e(rusl,rusl) , z(z(1)) ).
> YES
>
> 8
> CONTRADICTION!
>
> So either PAYPAL $25
> OR state which Step does not follow from the previous Steps!
Step 7 is no good because t and z are not defined.
Where's my $1?
C-B
> Herc
> --
> NEVER TAKE A BET WITH THE ADJUDICATOR!
|
|
|
|
