Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 9 Mar 2007 10:03:22 -0800
On Mar 8, 11:17 pm, Virgil <vir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1173422890.374310.290...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"MoeBlee" <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Again, I never disputed that for certain purposes it is not required
to specify a particular codomain.
In fact, you insist on it for set theory.
No, the standard set theory definition of 'is a function' does not
require specifying a particular codomain.
That does not contradict that we may specify a certain codomain in any
part of a proof or definition of a new symbol for the language.
It is the fact that for many if not most purposes, specification of a
codomain /is/ required that you have been finding objectionable.
No, I have no objection to specifying a particular codomain in any
discussion or proof. I said that sometimes it is crucial to specify a
particular codomain, such as the example I mentioned of the proof of
the definition by recursion theorem.
Cleary you have not been reading what I've been saying over and over
and over (or maybe my posts are not all appearing in your view).
MoeBlee
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: Virgil
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- References:
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: Virgil
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: Virgil
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: Ralf Bader
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: Ralf Bader
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: Virgil
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Prev by Date: Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Next by Date: Re: Hausdorff dimension and differentiable function
- Previous by thread: Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Next by thread: Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|