|
|
In article <cohcf2hvcgg95vvcprrhhnvfkajg6v9dgj@xxxxxxx>,
Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Isn't it?
> >What Zick thinks he knows, and what he actually knows are quite
> >different, with the latter being much smaller that Zick thinks it is.
>
> >> Yes, yes, Zick is silly.
> >
> >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.
So that Zick maintains that the same definition worded differently can
in one instance be an imperative and neither true nor false but with
exactly the same meaning but different wording be necessarily either
true or false.
>
> >Does Zick deny that "Let 'squircle' mean " a square circle' " 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.
What does Zick find ambiguous in "Let 'squircle' mean " a square
circle' "?
The only word in it of more than one syllable is "squircle".
> I get plenty from mathematics.I just get bubkas from neomathematikers.
As that is a group to which only Zick has access, we cannot help him
with his problem.
>
> >> >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.
And Zick is the very model of an anti-mathematician, who derides what he
cannot or will not understand. Very "Sour grapes"!
|
|