|
|
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:04:41 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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.
I certainly concur that axioms and definitions in modern math are not
true. Beyond that I'm only prepared to say that predicates in relation
to one another are either true, false, or problematic.
>> >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.
Well I certainly concur definitions in modern math imply nothing.
~v~~
|
|