Re: "Friendly Premises"

Acme Diagnostics wrote:
>
> Jim Spriggs wrote:
> >Jesse Alama wrote:
> >
> >> Torkel ignored much of the post
> >> <42eb8beb$0$91626$bb4e3ad8@xxxxxxxxxxxx> and called attention to the
> >> part about "self-proving procedures" and "recursive proof". That may
> >> have been a snarky move, but I think Torkel's question needs to be
> >> answered if we are to fully understand your original post. To be
> >> honest, I am with Tokel on this one: I too don't know what you mean by
> >> "self-proving procedures" or "recursive proofs". I presume other
> >> readers of sci.logic are in the same boat. For our sake, tell us what
> >> you mean by "self-proving procedure" and "recursive proof".
> >
> >My guess was that "recursive proof" was an honest mistake for "proof by
> >induction". "self-proving procedure" intrigues me, where can I buy one?
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Seeing George's message reminded me that I had intended
> to compliment your two statements, before getting sidetracked.
>
> "Honest mistake" is exactly correct.

So, when you wrote "recursive proof" you meant precisely "proof by
induction"?

> Also appropriate considering
> that I qualified my statement with "perhaps... though I'm not
> that far along yet... I'm certain to have made ... terminological
> mistakes."
>
> "Where can I buy one" has just the right touch of humor to cancel
> any implied insult.

Certainly no insult was intended.

> I obviously made a mistake there too, since I
> intended to use a phrase that posters could figure out easily
> enough, failing miserably.

Can you give an alternative to "self-proving procedure"? Or give an
example, or a reference? Do you mean something like:

Mathematicians use mathematics to prove things about logic
while at the same time founding their mathematics on logic.

--
I don't know who you are Sir, or where you come from,
but you've done me a power of good.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lying about the distributive property
    ... of the function has no impact on the distributive property is now key, ... You are making a basic logical fallacy. ... functions but has to do with the logical mechanics of mathematics. ... trying to figure out your mistake you just call everyone else stupid. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Galileos Paradox
    ... a typical mistake when using the immediate value. ... there is something wrong with mathematics. ... No idea what "mathematical reasons" these are. ... Set theory leads to intermediate values. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Ullrichism; Was: a theory of countable reals
    ... that rebuke, and with it's appropriateness in this newsgroup. ... deals with mathematics education, I forget the name of that ... if anyone can see where they made a mistake. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: "Friendly Premises"
    ... Jim Spriggs wrote: ... I obviously made a mistake there too, ... he tended to agree with Torkel. ... terminology and other activites, I was thinking I might post a ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
    ... >> So you aren't actually sure that it is a mistake then? ... > If mathematics is consistent then it must be logical. ... logical fallacies in a slipshod manner in an attempt to "fit" the proof into ...
    (sci.math)