Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
- From: herbzet <herbzet@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 17:00:21 -0400
Charlie-Boo wrote:
On Apr 28, 7:56 am, David C. Ullrich <dullr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:23:52 -0700 (PDT), Charlie-Boo
<shymath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
If you want to know the truth of the matter, any programmed
implementation of CBL will use only one symbol for both "implies" and
"subset", as there is no ambiguity and they are the same principle.
In fact, there is no reason to distingush between a set and a
predicate.
Oh my god.
I wrote: ? ?Implies? and ?subset? are the same principle. There is no
reason to distinguish between a set and a predicate.?
You wrote: ?Oh my god.?
Bertrand Russell wrote: ?In any symbolic expression, the letters may
be interpreted as classes or as propositions, and the relation of
inclusion in the one case may be replaced by that of formal
implication in the other.? - Principles of Mathematics
Were you as alarmed when Bertrand Russell said it as you were when I
said it? Or is it merely a blind condemnation if I say it, and blind
praise if a professor says it, with no mathematical significance?
Quick, define "formal implication"!
--
hz
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
- From: Charlie-Boo
- Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
- References:
- Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
- From: Charlie-Boo
- Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
- Prev by Date: Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
- Next by Date: Re: Existence of proof verifiers: A comedy
- Previous by thread: Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
- Next by thread: Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading