Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:43:09 +0300
William of Ockham wrote:
Aatu;
So the terms "the set of all quadruplets of naturals x,y,z,n with n>2 such that x^n + y^n = z^n" and "the empty set" have the same meaning?
Since I don't know mathematics, I don't know which set is meant by "the set of all quadruplets of naturals x,y,z,n with n>2 such that x^n + y^n = z^n". Presumably you know the answer. Which set do you mean by "the set of all quadruplets of naturals x,y,z,n with n>2 such that x^n + y^n = z^n"?
A quadruplet is a mathematical object consisting of four other mathematical objects in some order. It's usually written as <x,y,z,u> where x,y,z and u are the mathematical objects in the quadruplet, in that order. So the term "the set of all quadruplets of naturals x,y,z,n with n>2 such that x^n + y^n = z^n" refers to the set
{<x,y,z,n> | x^n + y^n = z^n and n > 2}(Here ^ denotes exponentiation).
Andrew Wiles proved in the middle 1990's that there are no such quadruplets, i.e.
{<x,y,z,n> | x^n + y^n = z^n and n > 2} = the empty setSo it's not possible for the extensions of "the set of all quadruplets of naturals x,y,z,n with n>2 such that x^n + y^n = z^n" and "the empty set" to be different. By your account we should conclude that the meaning of "the set of all quadruplets of naturals x,y,z,n with n>2 such that x^n + y^n = z^n" is the same as that of "the empty set". This conclusion strikes me as a bit odd.
-- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: Ross A. Finlayson
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- References:
- Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: William of Ockham
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: William of Ockham
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: Chris Menzel
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: William of Ockham
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: William of Ockham
- Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- Prev by Date: Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?
- Next by Date: a very easy problem
- Previous by thread: Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- Next by thread: Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|