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

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:29:30 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
said:
Chris Menzel wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:04:12 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
said:
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?

Goodness, you really are having trouble with the very simplest of
standard definitions. You do seem *sincerely* confused, at least, so
let me have a go. Consider the following sets:

A = {1,2,3}
B = {2,3,4}

The set theoretic union of these sets (forget please for the moment
about all the other vaguely related but distinct ordinary language
homophones) is the set containing all of their members together, namely:

C = A union B = {1,2,3,4}

Now, how can we describe C with complete logical clarity? Like this:
it's the set that contains an object x just in case either (i) x is in A
*or* (ii) x is in B. That description "x is in A or x is in B" is
exactly the property common to all and only the members of A and B,

No it isn't. x is common to only one of them, A or B. The term that is
left is not relevant, as it turns out, and so should not be in this
scenario.

On the other hand, if the x's refer to any of the elements in either A
or B, then you can make a case for saying "x is in A or x is in B" and
make a union of A and B. I think you call it an intersection. But
there's a problem with an intersection too:

The problem is that in order to assert that "x is in A or x is in B" I
must already have assumed a union, prior to claiming that there is one.

Goodness. I don't believe I've ever encountered anyone quite as
confused and (apparently) uneducable about the most elementary concepts
of logic and set theory as you. I suggest you run your understanding of
set theoretic union etc past Professor Shackel. Perhaps it would help
if someone on your faculty there at Cardiff were to confirm the feedback
you are getting here.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: void * pointer convert problem.
    ... >> int year; ... unions: if a union contains several structures that share a common ... _common initial sequence_ if corresponding members have compatible ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: type punning question...
    ... use of a union type is suggested. ... if a union contains several structures that share a common ... _common initial sequence_ if corresponding members have compatible ...
    (comp.std.c)
  • Re: padding?
    ... unsigned bas: 16; ... what's the section titled, "Structure and Union Members"? ... the common initial sequence guarantee. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Unions
    ... I don't think you want a union. ... > I have two tables I want to union, tableA and tableB. ... > column 'common', the tables have different column names. ... > all columns from both tables, and I want columns from tableA to get NULL ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming)
  • Re: inverting List::Compare
    ... Now I am again looking to compare two files but this time exclude any ... It is best to declare variables as close as possible to their first use. ... This call doesn't 'find common lines in two files'. ... You shouldn't put $union in quotes, and the loop is better written as ...
    (perl.beginners)