Re: Cantor Confusion

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:13:34 -0500, David Marcus
<DavidMarcus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Lester Zick wrote:
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:41:39 -0500, David Marcus
<DavidMarcus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:33:16 -0500, David Marcus
<DavidMarcus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A silly question. You haven't even bothered to learn the current meaning
of the word "definition". If you would actually read a textbook or take
a math course at a university, you might learn something.

Curious coming from one whose definitions aren't demonstrably true.

Care to define "demonstrably true"?

Already have in the root post to the thread "Epistemology 201: The
Science of Science". Your main problem seems to be a willingness to
assume the truth of whatever you're talking without demonstration. You
repeatedly use the term "true" in a collateral reply to Gene Ward
Smith while unable to demonstrate the truth of what you claim to
prove. 'Tis a puzzlement indeed for one trained in precise and exact
meanings of modern mathematics.

The word "true" has different meanings in different contexts. Its
meaning in mathematics is somewhat unusual. Usually in mathematics, it
just means "provable".

Yeah sure. Very convenient for those too lazy or stupid to examine the
actual "truth" of their axiomatic assumptions.

With this meaning, it makes no sense to say something is true, but not
provable. It also makes no sense to ask whether a definition is true,
since we don't prove definitions. They are simply abbreviations.

A definition is not an abbreviation. It's a series of predicates which
can be true or not in combination. The fact that series of predicates
are coded with an abbreviation for the series is irrelevant.

In logic, "true" has a technical meaning.

An indecipherable and undoubtedly incorrect technical meaning as it
turns out.

Outside mathematics, "true" has an entirely different meaning.

"True" has only one mechanically exhaustive and finitely reducible
meaning wherever it's used. If you want to call axioms and truth
values in Boolean logic true that's your business just as it's our
business if we want to laugh at your pretentiousness in doing so.

I don't know what you mean by "demonstrably true", but I am reasonably
sure you don't mean what the word "true" means in mathematics.

Of course not. "True" in mathematics doesn't mean "true"; it only
means an assumption of truth.

I'm not
particularly interested in reading old threads. If you care to give a
concise explanation again, I'll read it.

Thanks, sport. I could give you a concise explanation in half a
sentence but since you find yourself too lazy or stupid to read a post
maybe a page long I think I'd rather acquaint you with the modern math
definition of sex I've had occasion to offer Moe(x):
go *** yourself.

Mathematics is a language. If you take Mathematics and assume it is
English, you will misunderstand what the writer means.

I don't assume mathematics is any generic language just as I don't
assume modern mathematical axiomatic assumptions of truth are true.

~v~~
.

Quantcast