|
|
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:35:05 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>In article <0knbf2pgrqbgnd0767qelqjfkau8ustnic@xxxxxxx>,
> Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:56:35 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <31h9f2lhb5im2pt9gargnhfmnuv132rkbn@xxxxxxx>,
>> > Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:52:56 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <o009f2pbf89dvurucis1qbgdm3c0hs2vfv@xxxxxxx>,
>> >> > Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 28 Aug 2006 15:09:26 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Lester Zick wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 28 Aug 2006 14:28:43 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Lester Zick wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >Definitions are not subject to "proof".
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Sez who? If not then we're left with so many arbitrary
>> >> >> >> >> assumptions
>> >> >> >> >> as
>> >> >> >> >> the foundation of what we believe true.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >I don't suppose it would help to recommend that you read something
>> >> >> >> >about the subject.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What subject? The truth of definitions?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >The subect of definitions, logic in general, and logic for
>> >> >> >mathematics.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There is some point then to reading up on the educated guesswork of
>> >> >> mathematikers who claim gtheir definitions cannot be false and whose
>> >> >> axiomatic assumptions are assumed true ex cathedra?
>> >> >
>> >> >Mathematicians say that abbreviations are no more true versus false than
>> >> >they are red versus green.
>> >>
>> >> Well certainly you have elicited no convincing demonstration that what
>> >> you say regarding the truth of definitions is anything more than what
>> >> you say and what represents conventional wisdom and revealed truth in
>> >> the profession mathematikers like to call home.
>> >
>> >As all definitions are expressed in the imperative mood, like commands,
>> >"Let 'this' represent 'that'", question of "truth" or "falsehood" are
>> >irrelevant.
>>
>> So the definition of a squircle as a "square circle" is expressed in
>> the imperative mood?
>
>"Let 'squircle' mean " a square circle' " is in the imperative mood.
And "a squircle is a square circle" isn't. So what's your point?
>> >> So now "true" and "false" are inappropriate qualifiers for mathematics
>> >> definitions?
>
>Quite!
So in neomathematics everything you can prove true of axiomatic
assumptions becomes a theorem and everything else a definition? Quite
convenient I must say for those too lazy or stupid to prove the truth
of what they're talking about.
>> >A definition is no more subject to such "true/false" evaluations than is
>> >"Go jump in a lake!"
>>
>> So now we have the ESL perspective on true/false.
>>
>> >How perfectly rude of anti mathematikers like moi to have
>> >> considered otherwise.
>> >
>> >Not rude, just stupid. Zick just doesn't know any better.
>>
>> Apparently Zick does know grammar a trifle better.
>
>What Zick thinks he knows, and what he actually knows are quite
>different, with the latter being much smaller that Zick thinks it is.
Yeah at least I'm not driven to assumptions of truth for my beliefs.
>> Yes, yes, Zick is silly. Just not quite silly enough to accept your
>> kind of condescending assertions without some type of proof that
>> they're true.
>
>Does Zick deny that "Let 'squircle' mean " a square circle' " defines a
>meaning for 'squircle' ?
I deny it's the only form of definition certainly.
>Does Zick deny that "Let 'squircle' mean " a square circle' " is in the
>imperative mood?
I don't deny that the only concept of truth you possess is in the
imperative mood.
>Does Zick then claim that imperatives must be either 'true' or 'false' ?
Zick claims that relations between and among predicates must be "true"
"false" or ambiguous.If neomathematikers prefers ambiguous definitions
then I suggest the imperative mood is indeed suitable to convey them.
>> >> >And re the truth of axioms, mathematicians only look to see what would
>> >> >follow from certain assumptions,
>> >>
>> >> Well that certainly seems to be all that modern mathematikers are able
>> >> to do. It would be nice if they could get beyond "certain assumptions"
>> >> to discover what's actually true and false
>> >
>> >Based on what absolute truths? Mathematicians recognize that from a
>> >vacuum one gets nothing.
>>
>> Which is pretty much just what we get from modern mathematikers.
>
>That Zick gets nothing from mathematics is a result entirely of his own
>choosing. Lots of others get lots of things from mathematics.
I get plenty from mathematics.I just get bubkas from neomathematikers.
>> >Zick suggests that we lift ourselves off the ground by pulling up on our
>> >own bootstraps.
>>
>> I don't suggest you and others who prefer to wallow in the mud do
>> anything of the kind.
>
>That "mud" is more productive, and healthier, than whatever Zick is
>wallowing in, which I do not choose to name.
Sure, sure, sport. You're indeed the very model of a modern
mathematiker.
>> >Perhaps Zick thinks he can show us how to do that?
>>
>> If you'll show us how to wallow in the mud.
>
>We have neen trying to get Zick to move up to merely mud, but he prefers
>his own wallow.
Yeah, yeah, whatever you say.
~v~~
|
|