On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 10:51:38 PM UTC+10, Tommy wrote: > On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 12:02:27 +0200, Jürgen R. wrote: > > > > > Place your bets now. How will Mueckenheim avoid answering this question? > > > (That he will avoid it is certain.) > > > > > > (1) By ignoring it completely (2) By claiming that Wmath is the same as > > > Tmath (3) By claiming physics needs no such abstractions (4) Other > > > possibilities > > > > If WM actually does make a post in which he avoids this question, > > as opposed to not posting anything in response, he would choose to > > answer in a way which he hopes to insult as many people as possible, > > among those whom he percieves to be informed about applications of > > mathematics in the physical sciences, and generally of being capable > > of scientific thinking. What such an answer might look like precisely
Logic involves the reduction of syntactically well formed formula into inclusion or exclusion from any particular logic theory.
ZFC is a hierarchic set theory
xeS <-> p(x) AND xeT
There are other theories, such as using horn clauses.
e(X,s) <- p(X)
which are strict-formal in that the proof derivations are automatic.
theorem(R) <- inf(L,R) & theorem(L)
solve(R,z(Z)) <- inf(L,R) & solve(R,Z)
solve( e( s(s(0)),evens ) , z(z(z(0))) ) ?
Can a depth limited search solve 2eEVENS within 3 steps ?
Given such a rudimentary proof( THM , DEPTH ) predicate
there are 2 classes of Logic Theories.
theorem(X) <-> EXIST(d) solve(X,d)
theorem(X) <-> ~EXIST(d) solve(~X,d)
where X is given theoremhood until proven otherwise.
WM seems to abide with a Pessimist Logic, the most concrete and least abstract maths.