Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
- From: David C. Ullrich <dullrich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:46:53 -0500
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:18:10 +0100, John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
I just think you are stupid Ulrich.
I think you are stupid because you think (if you have thought about it
at all) that a term can play a role (in a union) even though it plays no
role. Let's simplify that:
You think that letters are signs.
You won't be able to understand that, I know. So I will give you an
example. Remember the definition of a union? Well, consider the case
that x is only in A.
This makes no sense. Do you mean that x is an element of A and
B is empty, or that x is an element of A and B can contain things
other than x or what?
In the definition, "the set of x such that..." means
"the set of _all_ x such that...". You keep referring
to "x" as though we'd specified what that symbol means.
You then claim AuB.
I don't "claim AuB". It doesn't make any sense to "claim"
a set. I certainly do claim that there is such a thing as
AuB.
Now then, "B" (in AuB) is not a
sign Ulrich. It is a redundant sign. It is a letter. It plays no role in
the game. So you can leave it out. Geddit mutton-head? dolt?
Supposing for the sake of argument that all of that were true,
not that it actually is: B plays no role, B is redundant, you
can leave it out. Fine. That has no effect whatever on the
validity of the definition.
Hint: Think about letters and signs (for example, numerals and numbers)
A number is _not_ a "sign", speaking of confusion.
and the ways in which they can be confused.
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.)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
- From: John Jones
- Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
- References:
- Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
- From: John Jones
- Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
- From: John Jones
- Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
- From: John Jones
- Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
- From: John Jones
- Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
- From: John Jones
- Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
- From: David C. Ullrich
- Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
- From: John Jones
- Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
- From: John Jones
- Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
- Prev by Date: Re: completeness what is it exactly
- Next by Date: Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
- Previous by thread: Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
- Next by thread: Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|