Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 29 of 31 [457 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 Next
Author Message
DontBother@nowhere.net
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 114

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:47:02 -0600, Virgil <virgil@comcast.net> wrote:

 Quote: In article , Lester Zick wrote: On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:47:00 -0600, Virgil wrote: You have not read my reference to " logical tautologies" correctly. If, for example. "P and not P" would qualify as "false" does your gobledegook require its negation, "P or not P", to be true? "P and not P" is only universally false because it provides no mechanical basis for alternatives since any "not (P and not P)" converts into itself "not P and P". Not in any respectable logic it doesn't. According to de Morgan's laws, "not (P and not P)" is logically equivalent to "P or not P".

It may be equivalent to lots of things. The issue is whether it
converts into itself mechanically.

 Quote: So there is no alternative in strict mechanical terms because "P or not P" is not always true if P itself contains a self contradiction because P and "not P" are the same. If P contains a contradiction, doesn't that make P false? In normal logic, that would make (not P) true.

It makes them the same.

 Quote: See if the above impresses you even a little. Not even.

Good. Then moving right along.

~v~~
Dave L. Renfro
science forum Guru

Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 570

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:39 pm    Post subject: Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?

Dave L. Renfro wrote:

 Quote: What do you mean by the truth of an axiom?

Lester Zick wrote:

 Quote: Whether an axiom is true or not.

Axioms are true by definition. Of course,
a certain axiom A for Theory T may be false
in Theory T'. However, in any (consistent)
theory for which A is an axiom, A will be true.

If you wish to argue with me further, please
do so with specific references from specific
mathematical logic and/or mathematical foundations
texts that support what you're saying.

Dave L. Renfro wrote:

 Quote: Not only that, but axioms can be proved quite easily. Here's an example I posted back on June 20: Axiom R: All right angles are congruent. Theorem: All right angles are congruent. Proof (2-column format): Statements Reasons 1. All right angles are congruent. 1. Axiom R.

Lester Zick wrote:

 Quote: You mean mathematikers can rely on circular reasoning to demonstrate modern math theorems? How nice. Certainly supports every speculative conjecture I've made concerning the intellectual content of modern math. Don't prove it; just assume it; then claim you've proven it.

Mathematics is basically the study of various
deductive structures. It appears that you
think it's something else.

One *can* study structures generated from
P ==> P for various statements P, but most
people aren't going to be very interested.

Dave L. Renfro
Aatu Koskensilta
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 277

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?

Lee Rudolph wrote:
 Quote: Aatu Koskensilta writes: My remarks are based on somewhat more mundane considerations; in group theory one often says things like "let A be an Abelian group such that ..." but in number theory one does not say "let be a structure in which all the arithmetical consequences of ZFC hold" or "let W,s,f,g> be a natural number structure in which the twin prime conjecture holds". I agree (based on observations of number theorists) that "one does not say" that sort of thing, and I am open to being persuaded (indeed, I am predisposed to be persuaded) that if a school of mathematicians got into the habit of saying that sort of thing (while continuing to do mathematics) then we (and possibly they) might want to say that what they were doing (though still mathematics, and possibly very fine mathematics) was no longer "number theory" (or, weaker, no longer *just* "number theory"): but I don't see such a response is self-evidently right.

That certainly would be the natural reaction. In fact, there already is
a discipline of mathematics where one can expect to hear such things. No
one calls it "number theory". It seems highly unlikely that there ever
could be a school of mathematics in which studying e.g. structures in
which the arithmetical consequences of ZFC hold was called "number
theory". That sort of a terminological shift would require a major
upheaval in the way people think about natural numbers.

 Quote: In other words (I guess), is there anything more than historical chance and prejudice behind the feeling (which I certainly share, but don't feel particularly justified in sharing) that "natural numbers should be *categorical*, dammit"?

It's a basic property of our conception of the natural numbers that they
don't bifurcate into a multitude of non-isomorphic structures. There are
some people of ultra-intuitionist and ultra-finitist peruasion -
Esenin-Volpin and Edward Nelson come to mind - who do think that there
are many different natural number lines and reject the ordinary
conception of the natural numbers as incoherent or unjustified. This
just goes to show, once again, that it is to a large extent a matter of
personal preference and inclination what one finds convincing and
coherent, and that even in mathematics there probably is no principle
someone competent hasn't doubted or rejected.

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xortec.fi)

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Dave L. Renfro
science forum Guru

Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 570

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:50 pm    Post subject: Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?

Dave L. Renfro wrote (in part):

 Quote: Axioms are true by definition. Of course, a certain axiom A for Theory T may be false in Theory T'. However, in any (consistent) theory for which A is an axiom, A will be true.

Actually, I think "truth" only makes sense
once a model is specified, so "for Theory T"
should be "in Model M for Theory T", and
similarly for the other references to "theory"
above.

Dave L. Renfro
DontBother@nowhere.net
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 114

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:32:14 -0600, Virgil <virgil@comcast.net> wrote:

 Quote: In article <48ptb2h9tn62b5qq2hifgras3vakbotcnn@4ax.com>, Lester Zick wrote: A good beginning discussion of the subject of mathematical definitions is in Suppes's 'Introduction To Logic'. But in order not to inhibit the metastasis of your own convictions, I recommmend that you not read such books. Well if there's one thing I detest more than assumptions of truth it's metastasis of convictions when one is actually dealing instead with demonstrations of truth. As Zick has not demonstrated any truths

Neither have you, sport. All we've dealt with so far is set theory as
a faith based institution of doddering ineptitude.

 Quote: nor dealt with any,...

~v~~
DontBother@nowhere.net
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 114

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?

On 20 Jul 2006 02:18:57 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>
wrote:

 Quote: Lester Zick wrote: On 18 Jul 2006 21:52:25 -0700, "Rupert" , Lester Zick wrote: The question I have is whether you or others believe in the possibility of universally exhaustively true mathematical axioms? What is "truth"? I can deal with the tautologous logical truth of implications like "if P then (P or Q)", but other than those, which include the more complex logical deductions from a set of axioms, I know of no absolute truth. If we care to consider absolute truth, then there is no such thing as an absolute truth. Well thanks for the input. Can we take your word for this? I don't see why not, unless an absolute truth could be demonstrated to exist! Would (1) (P => (P \/ Q)) constitute an absolute truth? Well, at this moment for some odd reason "\/" to me means what "/\" means to a lot of people (and vice versa for "/\")!. So (1) to me is not a truth; so it can not be an absolute truth that *must be universally recognized without exception*! If "absolute truth" means "something that is true regardless of which semantics you use" then you're right, no absolute truths exist. This is not a very interesting point. I agree it's not a very interesting point since you assume this truth absolute. No, I don't. I certainly don't assume it absolute in Nam Nguyen's sense. Clearly no truths are absolute in that sense. Oho? What I said was true relative to the semantics I was actually using. It clearly would not be true relative to any conceivable semantics. This is trivial. Certainly it seems so to those prefer to deal in assumptions of truth and assume so. No "seems" about it. It's completely obvious. What contestable assumption do you think I'm making?

I didn't say "contestable assumption". What I said was "assumption".
Assumptions refer to a lack of demonstration. You certainly assume
what you don't demonstrate by calling it obvious. Obviously it is a
canonical assumption on your part that what you say is true. Whether
it is actually true or not however remains to be seen.

 Quote: I think people who talk about absolute truth usually mean something different to what Nam Nguyen thinks it means Not at all What's your evidence?

If you would be so good as to clarify what Nam thinks "absolute truth"
means I'll try to supply it. It may or may not be "different to" what
others think but I have no doubt it will be "different from" what you,
Nam, and others think.

 Quote: if I intuit your point correctly. The claim I make is intended literally and exactly. What claim?

What claim were you referring to? We seem to be in a "he said/she
said" mode at this point where it's difficult to discern what each of
us is referring to. My claim in general terms is that the alternative
to absolute falseness is universally true.

 Quote: , and I make no comment about whether absolute truth exists in on of these senses or whether what I said was absolutely true in one of these senses. I merely claim that it was true. That is: not even "tautologous logical truth" would be absolute. Yes but tautological alternatives to necessary and universal falseness would perforce have to be necessarily and universally true. Again, as has been questioned by another poster, what does "universal falseness", or "universally true" mean? ~v~~ -- ----------------------------------------------------- What we call 'I' is just a swinging door which moves when we inhale and exhale. Shunryu Suzuki ---------------------------------------------------- ~v~~ ~v~~

~v~~
DontBother@nowhere.net
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 114

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:36 pm    Post subject: Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:39:47 EDT, "Dave L. Renfro"
<renfr1dl@cmich.edu> wrote:

 Quote: Dave L. Renfro wrote: What do you mean by the truth of an axiom? Lester Zick wrote: Whether an axiom is true or not. Axioms are true by definition.

Not quite. Axioms are true by assumption. That doesn't make them true.
It is one of the quirks of moderm mathematics that the meaning of
"definition" has been converted to "arbitrary assertion" or "fiat"
solely in order to validate assumptions of truth without coming right
out and saying so. Truth by definition and assumptions of truth are
nothing more than revealed truth, divine truth and are purely faith
based and undemonstrated intimations of intuition.

 Quote: Of course, a certain axiom A for Theory T may be false in Theory T'. However, in any (consistent) theory for which A is an axiom, A will be true.

Which is just another way of saying axioms can be false with a
straight face.

 Quote: If you wish to argue with me further, please do so with specific references from specific mathematical logic and/or mathematical foundations texts that support what you're saying.

Why would I want to argue with you? You haven't said anything worth

 Quote: Dave L. Renfro wrote: Not only that, but axioms can be proved quite easily. Here's an example I posted back on June 20: Axiom R: All right angles are congruent. Theorem: All right angles are congruent. Proof (2-column format): Statements Reasons 1. All right angles are congruent. 1. Axiom R. Lester Zick wrote: You mean mathematikers can rely on circular reasoning to demonstrate modern math theorems? How nice. Certainly supports every speculative conjecture I've made concerning the intellectual content of modern math. Don't prove it; just assume it; then claim you've proven it. Mathematics is basically the study of various deductive structures. It appears that you think it's something else. One *can* study structures generated from P ==> P for various statements P, but most people aren't going to be very interested. Dave L. Renfro

~v~~
DontBother@nowhere.net
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 114

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:50:15 EDT, "Dave L. Renfro"
<renfr1dl@cmich.edu> wrote:

 Quote: Dave L. Renfro wrote (in part): Axioms are true by definition. Of course, a certain axiom A for Theory T may be false in Theory T'. However, in any (consistent) theory for which A is an axiom, A will be true. Actually, I think "truth" only makes sense once a model is specified, so "for Theory T" should be "in Model M for Theory T", and similarly for the other references to "theory" above.

And into what model do "model M and theory T" fall precisely?

Modern appeals to model theory and models are simply naive
alternatives to being able to demonstrate what's actually true and
false. Models are not mechanically exhaustive. That's why they're
models of what we suppose to be true and not what's actually
demonstrably true and appeals to models instead of truth merely
demonstrate the rankest kind of faith based mathematics.

~v~~
Virgil
science forum Guru

Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 5536

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?

In article <bm7vb2t2arba9mrpdujjjnp8bg0k5pc58s@4ax.com>,
Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:

 Quote: On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:07:44 -0600, Virgil wrote: In article , Lester Zick wrote: But where does one find this alleged absolute falseness? Does Zeck have any concrete examples of this mysterious substance? I'm not familiar with what Zeck has. What Zick has is exhaustive alternatives neither of which you seem willing to acknowledge is true or false but prefer to demand examples of things which are true or false instead so you can argue about their truth or falsity instead of universally true and false alternatives in general. Apparently Zick has nothing that Zeck does not have. Zick has presented no "exhaustive alternatives", he merely keeps talking as if there were some. And Verge keeps talking as if there were none.

I am talking as if it has not ben established whether there are any, at
least until one has assumed something on which to base distinguishing
alternatives.
Virgil
science forum Guru

Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 5536

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?

In article <bo7vb2pc405sis5hkqn05phm7jiut84v6j@4ax.com>,
Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:

 Quote: On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:11:06 -0600, Virgil wrote: In article <8intb2dm8drmqqbih0p19tmgbcjunep3vk@4ax.com>, Lester Zick wrote: "Not" is the tautological alternative to "not not". The excluded middle is the reason we must reduce possible predicates to an absolute mechanical minimum. Then where do "not not not" and "not not not not", and so on, fit in? Do "not" and "not not" exhaustive possibilities for truth? Not to me. Then what does?

Zick is the one making claims about them, I merely express doubt.

Zick has yet to exhibit any "exhaustive alternatives" that do not
require presuming anything.
Virgil
science forum Guru

Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 5536

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:49 pm    Post subject: Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?

In article <pr7vb2h029h5cttph7cdapmb8ugon172rc@4ax.com>,
Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:

 Quote: On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:00:59 -0600, Virgil wrote: In article , Lester Zick wrote: On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:52:29 -0600, Virgil wrote: In article , Lester Zick wrote: On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:33:51 -0600, Virgil wrote: If you are unable to provide any examples of what you say you mean, I take leave to doubt that you know what you mean, or that you mean anything at all. Who says I'm unable I did not say you could not, only that you have not. Nonsense. You said "unable". If you can't even recognize your own words there's nothing to talk about. I said "if you are unable". Which you denied you said.

In Zick's dreams.

I have not denied saying "if Zick is impotent" in this issue but only
Zick misrepresents that as me claiming that Zick is impotent.
 Quote: If Zick cannot recognize the difference, perhaps he is the one who who has nothing to talk about. So far Zick has given no evidence of being able to give any examples, And Verge has given no evidence of being able to reason about truth.

As Zick has given no evidence that he has any absolute truth, he has

 Quote: As you have given me no reason to suppose that there are any such things as 'absolute falseness' or 'universal truth', much less that you can provide instances of either, I have good reason to doubt you. I've given the example of alternatives to absolute falseness which you cannot judge.

On the contrary, I can judge it garbage.
 Quote: My impression is that agreeing that "alternatives to universal falseness would perforce be universally true" requires agreement on at least what "universal falseness" means and what "universal truth" means, and I have no referents for either. I can't see how you need to understand what either means in order to evaluate the general proposition provided you understand that they're alternatives to one another. You claim them to be. But on what evidence? Until you provide evidence that at least one of them actually exists, there is nothing to discuss. Uh not really when you can't judge the hypothetical.

If they are merely hypothetical, then you are asking to have them
assumed in a context that requires that nothing be assumed.
Virgil
science forum Guru

Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 5536

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?

In article <a48vb2d4qv9dg49v8nsjgcqjc9gbqg9cd1@4ax.com>,
Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:

 Quote: On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:04:59 -0600, Virgil wrote: In article <3antb2hc9porstidi882cppdnmnmu3ef62@4ax.com>, Lester Zick wrote: On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:26:34 -0600, Virgil wrote: In article , Lester Zick wrote: On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:38:24 -0600, Virgil wrote: In article <4q8rb2t8c4q4g5hn5u1ht55h2pm6veb4gk@4ax.com>, Lester Zick wrote: Well, Nam, without going on endlessly I would like to ask if arguments based on "absolute truth" are indeed futile, are arguments based on "absolute falseness" necessarily equally futile? If one excludes logical tautologies like "if P then P" and logical contradictions like "if P then not P", yes. I had other tautologies in mind of the general form "P, not P". But the general argument remains regardless. Universal alternatives to universal falseness must perforce be universally true. Provided that there are any of either, maybe. But I cannot assent without seeing exemplars. Sure you can. Or if you can't you shouldn't be doing mathematics. If alternatives are exhaustive one or the other must be true. Provided that any of the alleged alternatives exist at all and provided that "true" versus "false" is appropriate for any of them. For example "North", East" "South" and "West" are in a sense exhaustive, but none of them is any truer that another. Sure. And Verge and math are mutually exhaustive alternatives too.

If they both exhaust you, perhaps you should avoid them.
Virgil
science forum Guru

Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 5536

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?

In article <n68vb2p91g8m3nbbp0k4v7qbit7m6jfutn@4ax.com>,
Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:

 Quote: On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:47:02 -0600, Virgil wrote: In article , Lester Zick wrote: On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:47:00 -0600, Virgil wrote: You have not read my reference to " logical tautologies" correctly. If, for example. "P and not P" would qualify as "false" does your gobledegook require its negation, "P or not P", to be true? "P and not P" is only universally false because it provides no mechanical basis for alternatives since any "not (P and not P)" converts into itself "not P and P". Not in any respectable logic it doesn't. According to de Morgan's laws, "not (P and not P)" is logically equivalent to "P or not P". It may be equivalent to lots of things. The issue is whether it converts into itself mechanically.

According to de Morgan, and others,
"not (P and not P)" and
"P or not P"
convert quite mechanically into each other but
"not (P and not P)" and
"not P and P"
do not convert into each other in any way at all.
Virgil
science forum Guru

Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 5536

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:02 pm    Post subject: Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?

In article <utavb2tsrf1vme8aijr4a59bp5q450ks98@4ax.com>,
Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:

 Quote: On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:32:14 -0600, Virgil wrote: In article <48ptb2h9tn62b5qq2hifgras3vakbotcnn@4ax.com>, Lester Zick wrote: A good beginning discussion of the subject of mathematical definitions is in Suppes's 'Introduction To Logic'. But in order not to inhibit the metastasis of your own convictions, I recommmend that you not read such books. Well if there's one thing I detest more than assumptions of truth it's metastasis of convictions when one is actually dealing instead with demonstrations of truth. As Zick has not demonstrated any truths Neither have you, sport.

AS I am the one doubting the existence of any such things as absolute
truths or absolute falsehoods, my lack of demonstrating the existence of
any such thing supports my position.

As Zich is the one affirming their existence, his lack of demonstration
tends to weaken his position.

 Quote: All we've dealt with so far is set theory as a faith based institution of doddering ineptitude.

Zick has illustrated doddering ineptitude by his own performance, but
that ineptitude has not been up much of anything else.
Virgil
science forum Guru

Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 5536

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?

In article <d1bvb29uf4ujvoib634ps0hqppje11iufa@4ax.com>,
Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:

 Quote: I didn't say "contestable assumption". What I said was "assumption". Assumptions refer to a lack of demonstration. You certainly assume what you don't demonstrate by calling it obvious.

In mathematics, all assumptions (axiom systems) are merely conditional,
to see what will follow from them. When what follows proves useful or
interesting, one tends to codify those assumptions. but that never
requires that one claims them true is any absolute sense. Such
assumptions are always "what if's".

 Quote: Obviously it is a canonical assumption on your part that what you say is true. Whether it is actually true or not however remains to be seen.

But it is something that Zilch is unable to see.

 Quote: My claim in general terms is that the alternative to absolute falseness is universally true.

A claim which means nothing, unless Zilch can establish that there is an
absolute falseness. Is that anything like establishing that "Satan"
exists?

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 29 of 31 [457 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 Next View previous topic :: View next topic
 The time now is Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:42 pm | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics unified theory gb6724 New Theories 4 Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:25 am Signal Nonlocality Loophole in Quantum Theory? Jack Sarfatti Math 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:59 am A Combinatorics/Graph Theory Question mathlover Undergraduate 1 Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:30 pm A Combinatorics/Graph Theory Question mathlover Math 2 Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:02 pm A Combinatorics/Graph Theory Question mathlover Combinatorics 0 Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:58 pm