Re: Cranks and errors
- From: Herbert Newman <nomail@invalid>
- Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 02:56:21 +0200
On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:57:04 -0700 (PDT) Marshall wrote:
On May 18, 3:44 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Marshall, I don't think that the notion of model has any relevance for the
Or, if I may be so bold, and without meaning any disrespect,
I've given you all you need to know that with a language with '+' and
'0' and the axiom "Axy x=y" we may derive, with first order logic with
identity, "Axy x+y=0".
See Endertons' logic book or any number of other textbooks on
mathematical logic (or even just read your own copy of Shoenfield
without burdening it with all the extra garbage you demand it say).
work it out for one's own self. Can we come up with a model
for that theory in which it is *not* the case that x+y=0? (For
example.) No, we cannot. (I think this completely escapes
Nam's attention, even when it is specifically pointed out.)
"problem" discussed here. (Though I might err, of course.)
(Briefly:) IF "x+y" is a term, and IF "0" is a term, clearly there is no
interpretation (in the context of FOPL=) such that "x+y=0" is not
satisfied/true.
Again pointing out why we have the "paradigm" "language first" in this
context. ;-)
Herb
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cranks and errors
- From: Herbert Newman
- Re: Cranks and errors
- References:
- Cranks and errors
- From: Herbert Newman
- Re: Cranks and errors
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cranks and errors
- From: Nam Nguyen
- Re: Cranks and errors
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cranks and errors
- From: Marshall
- Cranks and errors
- Prev by Date: Re: Cranks and errors
- Next by Date: Re: Cranks and errors
- Previous by thread: Re: Cranks and errors
- Next by thread: Re: Cranks and errors
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|