Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: A finite set of all naturals
Replies: 15   Last Post: Aug 17, 2013 3:10 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Virgil

Posts: 7,005
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: A finite set of all naturals
Posted: Aug 17, 2013 1:14 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <usDPt.85898$An7.26389@fx08.iad>,
Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> wrote:

> On 16/08/2013 1:33 PM, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <c10s09pu0gs0av09l4gfqrrpbdm5gj510n@4ax.com>,
> > quasi <quasi@null.set> wrote:
> >

> >> quasi wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Or how about the following instead?
> >>>
> >>> odd(x) <-> [x*y=2*z] -> Ew[y=2*w]

> >>
> >> to Nam:
> >>
> >> Since you've has already defined various versions of even(x),
> >> my above definition of odd(x) can be expressed more simply as:
> >>
> >> odd(x) <-> even(x*y) -> even(y)
> >>
> >> Doesn't that qualify as a "positive formula"?

>
> No. Like Ben's D2, it's a "negative" formula.
>

> >>
> >> quasi

> >
> > I like that one!

>
> If you say so. One of course can "like" anything as one wishes,
> including a "negative" formula.


If implication does not make it negative, which you seem to allow
elsewhere, wherein does your alleged negative appear in it?
--





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.