Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: Matheology ? 222 Back to the roots
Posted:
Mar 1, 2013 5:11 AM
|
|
Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> writes:
> On 28/02/2013 7:51 PM, Virgil wrote:
>> In article <khUXs.345339$pV4.177097@newsfe21.iad>,
>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/02/2013 8:27 AM, Frederick Williams wrote:
>>>> Nam Nguyen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27/02/2013 10:12 PM, Virgil wrote:
>>>>>> In article <R8AXs.345282$pV4.85998@newsfe21.iad>,
>>>>
>>>>>> The set of all functions from |N = {0,1,2,3,...} to {0,1,2,...,9} with
>>>>>> each f interpreted as Sum _(i in |N) f(i)/10^1, defines such a
>>>>>> structure..
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't look like a structure to me. Could you put all what
>>>>> you've said above into a form using the notations of a structure?
>>>>
>>>> There is a set and a collection of functions on it. How does it fail to
>>>> be a structure?
>>>
>>> From what textbook did you learn that a structure is defined as
>>> "a set and a collection of functions on it"?
>>
>> Then give us your textbook definition of structure and show why the
>> above fails to meet it.
>
> Shoenfield, Section 2.5 "Structures". One reason the above fails is,
> you don't define, construct, the predicate (set) for the symbol '^'.
Who said that that is a predicate here?
> And that's just 1 reason amongst others. Do you admit it now that
> the above fails to meet the requirements of a language structure?
It fits with Shoenfield in the case where the only predicate
is equality.
--
Alan Smaill
|
|
|
|
