Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.

David C. Ullrich wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:04:12 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

David C. Ullrich wrote:

B doesn't come into it any more than C.
B is irrelevant to a statement about A and B? Huh.
Yes, it is irrelevant. Either A or B is irrelevant in the formation of a union in which only either A or B has elements in common with x.

C is a {banana,orange}. DO YOU SEE WHAT I AM GETTING AAAT??? Sorry to shout, but do you see what I am getting at?
No, and neither will anyone else - your comment about C has no
relevance whatever.
Okay, you don't see what I am getting at. Try this:
IF a union of A and B is described only in terms of either A or B, then how can a union be a union of A AND B?
ie. how can you have a union of EITHER A OR B?

I finally see what the problem is - you don't understand simple
English. The definition of A union B is this: "the set of all x
such that x is an element of A or x is an element of B".

In particular the definition is _not_ this:

"the set of all x such that x is in A or the set of all x such
that x is in B".

The closest I can come to making sense of your comments
is that you're misreading the definition that way.

Hint: When you object to the notion of the union of two
sets you're _really_ out somewhere in left field. Another
hint would be that the definition I've given _is_ the
standard definition, as you'd know if you were not
so awesomely woof ignorant.

[C comes into it because if the union is only of either A or B, then C can be associated with either term. Honestly, your definition must be wrongly transcribed.]

David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
    ... how can a union be a union of A AND B? ... Address the objection. ... goes around the Sun, ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: AREA
    ... union of D_1 and D_2. ... meaningless as you always assumed. ... That would make a mockery of everything Godel ... "expanding f" at other ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
    ... IF a union of A and B is described only in terms of either A or B, ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ... (John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads." ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... Either A or B is irrelevant in the formation of a union in which only either A or B has elements in common with x. ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
    ... how can a union be a union of A AND B? ... Address the objection. ... goes around the Sun, ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ...
    (sci.logic)