Re: "Friendly Premises"


Torkel Franzen <torkel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> A well-known regular poster
>> on math logic subjects successfully inferenced it into a correct
>> math term with some conviction here:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/asc4k
>>
>> You'll have to infer what he meant by "proof" yourself
>> since I am unqualified as I've posted many times.
>
> So how do you know that he "inferenced" successfully?

Because "proof" is a correct math term according to:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Proof.html

Of course, as has been well-demonstrated, your theoretical
understanding of words and phrases, such as about nouns
used as verbs, does not extend to inferencing the vast scope of
entire sentences, let alone the 10 (or whatever) higher contexts
that are controlling of that. So I'll pitch in, now for a second
instance of sentence improving as I recall, and compose the
question that you likely intended:

>So how do you know that he inferenced correctly?

Because, Torkelarry, I have every reason to believe he did, and
no reason to believe he didn't. I know what "self-proving" and
"procedure" mean, I don't recall anyone not understanding them in
my 45 years of experience with the phrase or concept, George
Dance does as he's implied in his posts here and in other groups,
and most of all you do as I told you the first time you asked
here...

- - - - -
"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>Torkel Franzen <torkel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> What is meant by a self-proving procedure or a recursive proof?
> You know the answers to both those questions.
- - - -

...and every time since, as I recall, demonstrating to you that
this is within "what I know."

Martin Strobe is well-known here and easily falls into this
class of "people who know what 'self-proving' and 'procedure'
mean and have a 10-year-old's ability to put three such words
together to make a phrase." Additionally, by the record, he
easily falls into the class of posters who can match that
resulting phrase to correct math terms and select the most
descriptive one, as also evidenced by 1) his willingness to post
it in a combative thread, 2) some apparent conviction in his
style of posting, 3) his subsequent post questioning the
positioning of the definition of "procedure" indicating that he
knew the definition of that word as it applied in the "proof"
definition, 4) the short exchange contributing to the definition
of "self-" that we had, and 5) the ommission of questioning any
other aspects of my logic-context definitions of the three words.

I believe this sufficiently demonstrates a reasonable and
appropriate level of confidence to recommend to Jesse that he
accept Martin's determination, and to contact Martin if he had
doubts or questions. I clearly stated my lack of qualifications
to him as you've quoted at the top.

If he bothers to review the exchange he will notice that
the direct context of "proof" was "deductive" and indirect
context was "propositional calculus." From this and the above,
one could make further inferences, though with less confidence.
For instance, that there are both self-proving and
non-self-proving procedures in math, and that a typical
propositional logic proof is one of the self-proving kinds.

Of course the real point of your post is that Jesse said I had
not sufficiently attempted to explain, and Martin's post plus
the other two links demonstrated that to be false. I.e. another
failed rescue attempt, this time of Jesse, just as you failed to
rescue Menzel eariler in the thread.

Larry
.