Re: Small Set Theory,Updated.


MoeBlee wrote:
zuhair wrote:
you cannot
know how, because you didn't follow the subject from its beginning.

Each time you post your revision, I read it just like I would read any
statement of the axioms of a mathematical theory. Each time I do that,
I get to the first line in your formulations that does not make sense.
And each time I point out what does not make sense and why it does not
make sense, you do not have a satisfactory reply.

You are very confused about what formulas, predicates, defintions, and
axioms are. Since you don't have any books to read (and, apparently,
are unwilling even to find an Internet book in PDF format), only by
blundering your way, a little bit at a time, do you get closer and
closer to anything coherent. But, on the contrary, lately, you've been
trying to put patch upon patch upon patch to get your axioms, and each
patch takes you deeper into incoherence.

To start, why don't you state the syntax of your language? That might
pave something.

Oh, but to state your syntax you'd need to know how to work with
inductive definitions. You don't. Oh well.

MoeBlee

All of that is nonsensical rubbish.

If you say that my definitions are incoherent, then point out this
incoherence in a simple language,not in the snobbish silly language you
are always posting here. Point out the error in a manner that I cannot
object to, as hagman did many times(though he fail the last time).
and as Jesse highs also did sometimes. Since you've read all the books
you've mentioned then I challeng you to point a single incoherence in
my system, in a simple manner that I cannot object to. I think you are
the one who is confused. I admit that I have few knowledge in the areas
you've mentioned, and i said and I will do what I said, I will read
this subject in a systematic way. By the way there is no e-books in the
net on the subjects you told me about. However I am reading some here
and their,(but I don't have the time).

Next time don't speak in a silly snobbish manner, just be objective and
pinpoint the defect, that's all what logic is about, it is not related
to weather I have shallow knowledge of it or not, or weather I am made,
a lier, a crank, or whatever occurs in your mind, once I post any
claim, then if you have refutation or something against it , then
pinpoint it in a simple logical straightforward objective manner that
no one can object to.

Zuhair

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Small Set Theory,Updated.
    ... Since you don't have any books to read (and, apparently, ... trying to put patch upon patch upon patch to get your axioms, ... patch takes you deeper into incoherence. ... logic and mathematics are not about whether you are uninformed. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: [BUG] 2.6.20-rc3-mm1: can not mount root
    ... err. ... We merged that patch. ... So perhaps 2.6.20-rc6 now crashes in the ... same manner? ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Ultima 8 (floppy version)
    ... There is a general Ultima 8 patch, which fixes all manner of problems with ... patch it... ...
    (rec.games.computer.ultima.series)