|
|
In article <pksbf2ljq7h442gj4m88lbv4esihafsb9f@xxxxxxx>,
Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:06:19 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I am not aware of any definition in mathematics that assumes anything,
>
> Well if defintions are neither true nor false I don't exactly see how
> they cannot assume everything they say.
Nor how they need to assume anything. Show us a definition that assumes
something, Zick!
>
> >except a moderate proficiency in English, or the definer's native
> >tongue.
> >
> >Perhaps Zick has some examples in mind?
>
> Zick tends to concentrate on the truth or falsity of definitions and
> leave definitional assumptions to those who cannot.
As there is foundationfor truth or falsity to be involved in
definitions, as Zick has claimed, his claim about assumptions being
involved will prove to be equally ill founded.
>
> >> They remain undemonstrated problematic
> >> assumptions regardless.
> >
> >For example?
>
> For example those things which can be neither true nor false.
Such as? Avoiding the question, as Zick keeps doing, leads one to
conclude that either Zick doesn't know what he is talking about or knows
he is wrong but won't admit it.
>
> >> And whether they save time and space is totally
> >> irrelevant.
> >
> >It may be irrelevant to whether they are valid, but not to whether they
> >are useful.
>
> Jesus are you dense.
What is the point of abbreviations which save neither time not space?
Interested minds want to know!
>
> >> >> >All definitions are essentially no more than abbreviations, and can be
> >> >> >eliminated by opting to do without the brevity they provide.
> >> >>
> >> >> Or you could keep the abbreviation and do without the contradiction
> >> >> involved.
> >> >
> >> >What contradiction can be involved in keeping them if one can keep them
> >> >without contradiction?
> >>
> >> Huh? Do you actually read what you write? By all means go ahead and
> >> keep the ones without contradictions. Then tell us how you demonstrate
> >> which ones they are.
> >
> >First show me that there can be ones WITH a contradiction.
>
> I already have.
Not to the satisfaction of anyone but Zick.
And if Zick wants only a monologue supporting his own biases and
prejudices, he need not bother to post at all.
> >> >> A squircle is a square circle.
> >> >
> >> >You have defined something, but there is no implication in that
> >> >definition that the thing defined need exist, and , in this case, it
> >> >does not.
> >>
> >> Yeah look, Virgil, this comment is nothing but doubletalk offered as
> >> an excuse the fact that you're wrong on this aspect of definitions.
> >
> >Mathematics has no problems with definitions like that. If Zick does,
> >perhaps he needs to get some tutoring in logic.
>
> You mean modern math has no problems with doubletalk and I agree.
While the Greeks would have has to have it stated in Greek, those such
as Archimedes would have no trouble with my comments at all.
>
> >> >Vacuous definitions do not of themselves create problems
> >> >unless one tries to incorporate instantiation as a part of the
> >> >definition, but that is not proper in definitions.
> >>
> >> Oh so now we move on from just keeping valid definitions without
> >> contradictions to more pressing concerns about vacuous definitions and
> >> totally nugatory incorporations of instantiations in definitions? And
> >> here I thought all along that definitions could not be evaluated true
> >> or false. My mistake.
> >
> >While Zick makes many mistakes, thinking that definitions are neither
> >true nor false is not one of them.
>
> Yeah, yeah, whatever.
My , my, such penetrating logic!
>
> >> >> >> >Does LZ have any examples of mathematical definitions that include
> >> >> >> >requirements that the thing defined exists or not exist? I know of
> >> >> >> >none.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I didn't imagine you would. Do you maintain that definitions
> >> >> >> inclusive
> >> >> >> of contradictory statement combinations are not false?
> >> >
> >> >Give me an example. If your "squircle" is an example of what you mean,
> >> >then "NO"! The definition is not "false" it is merely not instantiated.
> >>
> >> Oh horseshit, Virgil. I gave you a false definition. Now you
> >> arbitrarily extend the demand from definition to instantiation.
> >> Instantiation is not and can never be an aspect of definition because
> >> you can't instantiate what you can't define.
> >
> >But one can certainly define what one cannot instantiate.
> >Zick's "squircle" is a good example.
>
> Sure it is. Problem is though that you can't instantiate what you
> can't define.
Who needs to? The issue is whether sentences of the form
"Let 'A' represent 'B' ." can be true or false.
mathematics and mathematicians say no.
What Zick's mathematikers say we would have to ask Zick to explain, as
we have no other access to them except through him.
> >> More instantiation nonsense. I really don't understand where you get
> >> such quaint ideas regarding definitions.
> >
> >From dictionaries, and texts on logic, and tests on mathematics, and
> >from that uncommon common sense that Zick seem to be utterly lacking.
>
> You mean facile common sense assumptions of truth.
That may be what Zick means, but why he should put his ideas in other
mouths is something only he knows.
> >> I'd say self contradictory definitions are pretty much false.
> >
> >Then you would say wrongly.
>
> And you would say rightly that they're not false?
As I have never seen one, and cannot conceive of one, I would not say
that they even exist.
|
|