|
|
Wherein Virgil the Grammarian labors mightily to bring forth a
grammatical mouse. What's the point, Virgil? Why bother? I already
agree with you that axioms and definitions in modern math are not
true.
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:07:41 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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"!
~v~~
|
|