
Re: Matheology S 224
Posted:
Apr 14, 2013 9:40 PM


Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> writes:
> On 14/04/2013 4:58 PM, Nam Nguyen wrote: >> On 14/04/2013 4:28 PM, Nam Nguyen wrote: >>> On 14/04/2013 3:41 PM, fom wrote: >>>> On 4/14/2013 3:40 PM, Nam Nguyen wrote: >>>>> On 14/04/2013 9:19 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote: >>>>>> On 14/04/2013 12:44 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you or they give me a straightforward statement of understanding >>>>>>> or not understanding of Def1, Def2, F, F' I've requested? > >> Also, if you'd like to help the debate about my cGC thesis, >> why don't you offer a closure on my Def1 and Def2. >> >> I'm serious in saying that it's crucial to my thesis about >> cGC. If such a simple definition of setmembership truthrelativity >> is technically wrong, inconsistent, or what have you, of course my >> entire thesis would falter to pieces. And you will never hear me attempt >> on the relativity of cGC truth anymore. >> >> But I do need a closure on these 2 definitions. > > Naturally _everyone_ who could constructively contribute to the closure > would be welcomed. And if I miss anyone in the below list I'd like > to apologize in advance. > > In particular, with some reasons no so important of my own, I'd > like appreciate in advance if Chris Menzel, Herman Rubin, Franz > Fritsche, Aatu Koskensilta, George Greene, Dave Seaman, Rupert, > Jim Burns, could offer some analysis and closure on my Def1 and Def2 > as presented in: > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/e6f47fad548fbb97?hl=en
You sure seem eager for some comments. I know I'm not on the list, but I'll bite.
,  Given a set S:   Def1  If an individual (element) x is defined to be in S in a finite  manner or inductively, then x being in S is defined an absolute  truth.   Def2  If an individual (element) x isn't defined to be in S in a  finite manner or inductively, then then x being in S, or not,  is defined as a relative truth, or falsehood, respectively   Would you et al. understand Def1 and Def2 definitions now? `
I don't understand the definitions at all, because I don't know what it means that "x is defined to be in S in a finite manner or inductively."
In fact, I understand almost none of that phrase. I don't know what it means for x to be "defined to be in S", much less so defined "in a finite manner or inductively".
So, there you have it  a response, albeit not from anyone on your list.
 Jesse F. Hughes "'Cause I got what all the women want. Said I got what all the women want. I never say I do when I really don't."  Steve Earle, Graveyard Shift

