Re: Implementable Set Theory ... AHA !!!
- From: tommy1729 <tommy1729@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:19:35 EDT
On 15 Okt., 11:28, tommy1729 <tommy1...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
hagman wrote:you
To show inconsistance, you need to show that *no*
model can exist that
implements all your axioms, or more easily: that
sentence and its negation !!!can prove a
sentence
and its negation.
aha ! to show inconsistance you need to prove a
remember the animals in the room ?
Do you mean Schrodinger's cat?
no dammed , i even GAVE THE LINK AND TOPIC !
both alive or dead (negation of alive) was said tobe true,
'dead' and 'alive' are themselves awfully unspecific
properties.
And anyway you are referring to quantum physics where
they are not opposites but rather something like
orthogonal waveforms (well, a bit more comlex than
that),
which allow superposition.
i am NOT REFERRING TO QM ( bogus )
yet
HERE YOU SAY THAT IMPLIES INCONSISTANCE !!
I was implicitly referrnig to mathematical theories,
esp. those based on predicate calculus, where
(P & ~P) -> Q
is a theorem.
info, just as my recent topic said !
so the animals paradox is inconsistant or hold no
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=1638026
paradox"
"logic and paradox: more on TST and the liar
SEE THIS ; the link !!
just pointing out the paradoxal reasoning of cantor
regards
tommy1729
ps i dont consider hagman an enemy or something ,
set theory.
afterall a proof must be consistant with all maththeories.
tommy1729
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Implementable Set Theory ... AHA !!!
- From: hagman
- Re: Implementable Set Theory ... AHA !!!
- References:
- Re: Implementable Set Theory ... AHA !!!
- From: hagman
- Re: Implementable Set Theory ... AHA !!!
- Prev by Date: Re: Factorisation algorithms
- Next by Date: Electrical Engineering: Principles and Applications, by Hambley 4th (Fourth) edition
- Previous by thread: Re: Implementable Set Theory ... AHA !!!
- Next by thread: Re: Implementable Set Theory ... AHA !!!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|