|
|
On 30 Oct 2006 17:11:46 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Lester Zick wrote:
>> On 27 Oct 2006 14:30:27 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >Lester Zick wrote:
>> >> According to MoeBlee's recent lectures on the subject of exhaustive
>> >> mathematical definitions one cannot simply define IN and OUT, one must
>> >> use a placeholder such as IN(x) and OUT(x) to establish the domain of
>> >> discourse.
>> >
>> >Please stop mangling what I've said and then representing your mangled
>> >versions as if they are what I said.
>>
>> What's mangled about what I said? Did you or did you not say
>> mathematical definitions require "domain of discourse" placeholder
>> variables
>
>No, I did not. I explained to you that variables may be used in certain
>mathematical definitions to range over the domain of discourse of a
>given model of the theory. I didn't say that the variables "establish"
>the domain of discourse (which is nonsense), nor did I say that we
>cannot make definitions without variables (some defintions may not
>require variables), nor did I say that variables should be appended the
>way you append them and the way you've been misrepresenting the
>particular definition I gave.
>
>Please stop it already.
You know you really need to re examine the modern math definition of
sex I gave you again, slick. You're all over the place on this and if
I didn't get such a kick out of willy-nilly editing and abridging your
posts I would certainly enjoy a critical re examination of the issue.
Of course I'll stop it already, asshole, since you're begging.No sense
embarrassing you further.
~v~~
|
|