Re: Contradiction or paradox

On May 19, 4:55 am, David C. Ullrich <ullr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 18 May 2007 15:28:12 -0700, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On May 18, 2:39 pm, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 18, 5:29 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 18, 12:43 pm, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 18, 1:13 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 18, 4:12 am, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 17, 11:19 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Your mindless and irresponsible claims about Norm
Megill's system is another example.

If you want to debate that system, it would help to start a new
thread. He uses an expression like xRy(Rz)=(xRy)Rz and substitutes +
for R but there is nothing at that point about + or - so - could
equally well be substituted for R.

Silly boy, there is an hypothesis of that theorem that you have not
shown is satisfied by subtraction. That has been pointed out to you
already by a few other posters.

See, I repeat, you have not shown that subtraction satisfies the
hypotheses.

I repeat, you have not shown that subtraction satisfies the
hypothesis.

Of course he hasn't. And of course he's going to ignore this point
regardless of how many times you repeat it - that's the standard
in CB-speak regarding simple refutations of things he says: If
he simply ignores the refutation then he's free to come back a
few months later and state that no such refutation exists.

What was that word? Right, "irresponsible". Yes, his claims
about Megill's thingie have certainly been irresponsible,
_since_ he's _repeating_ false claims, in particular that
there's no difference between + and - above, in spite of
the fact that the difference _was_ very clearly explained
to him _last_ time.


You provide nothing. You prove nothing. You substantiate nothing.


There is also the general question of what ZFC alone can prove and
what he says regarding that question and what his site shows.
You don't know what ZFC is.
Published papers don't even agree as to what ZFC is. But I know
exactly what it is. What is it? Then I'll say. It has to do with
Computationally Based Logics.

There are various formulations of formal ZFC, but they are not so
dissimlar that a general definition can't be given. And what you know
exactly is what you BELIEVE ZFC to be. From your postings in the
thread that discussed ZFC proving general results in mathematics, it's
clear that you don't know what ZFC is.

Then what is it? Formally.

The set of sentences entailed by classical first order logic with
identity (with the language whose only non-logical symbols are the 2-
place predicate symbols '=' and 'e') and the non-logical axioms:
extensionality, union, power set, infinity, regularity, schema of
replacement (as formulated*), and choice.

*
If P is a formula and
v does not occur free in P and
w does not occur free in P and
v is free for y in P and
w is free for y in P and
b does not occur free in P, then
all closures of the following are axioms

AuezAvw((P[v|y] & P[w|y]) -> v=w) -> EbAy(yeb <-> Euez P).

MoeBlee

************************

David C. Ullrich- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Contradiction or paradox
    ... He uses an expression like xRy=Rz and substitutes + ... Published papers don't even agree as to what ZFC is. ... identity (with the language whose only non-logical symbols are the 2- ... place predicate symbols '=' and 'e') and the non-logical axioms: ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Contradiction or paradox
    ... He uses an expression like xRy=Rz and substitutes + ... few months later and state that no such refutation exists. ... Published papers don't even agree as to what ZFC is. ... place predicate symbols '=' and 'e') and the non-logical axioms: ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Contradiction or paradox
    ... He uses an expression like xRy=Rz and substitutes + ... few months later and state that no such refutation exists. ... Published papers don't even agree as to what ZFC is. ... David C. Ullrich- Hide quoted text - ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Contradiction or paradox
    ... He uses an expression like xRy=Rz and substitutes + ... Published papers don't even agree as to what ZFC is. ... should have said 'classical first order logic plus identity theory' ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Contradiction or paradox
    ... He uses an expression like xRy=Rz and substitutes + ... Published papers don't even agree as to what ZFC is. ... identity (with the language whose only non-logical symbols are the 2- ... place predicate symbols '=' and 'e') and the non-logical axioms: ...
    (sci.logic)
Loading