|
|
In article <b97cf25cr4d216hmcek99c2s27r0l41j83@xxxxxxx>,
Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:21:31 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> True/false apply to predicates in relation to one another. In other
> words your facile assumption that definitions are neither true nor
> false is false.
Zick must prove that claim by presenting an example each of a "true
definition" and a "false definition" in mathematics to illustrate the
difference, as there are no mathematical definitions that I have ever
seen are not reducible to the form "let 'A' represent 'B' ", which
partakes of neither truth nor falsity.
>
> >When Zick requires such forms to be either true or false, he is asking
> >for the impossible.
>
> Why not? From what I've heard it just takes a little longer.
Show me. A "false" definition must imply something contrary to fact, but
definitions imply nothing, they merely abbreviate.
|
|