|
|
Lester Zick wrote:
> 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
> 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.
You just pretty much said it all about yourself. Thank you for that.
MoeBlee
|
|