Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Randy Poe <poespam-trap@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:12:38 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 3, 8:07 am, Angus Rodgers <twir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:24:27 -0500, quasi
I don't know how to explain my point better. Rather than try
to do so (which would only lead to further possibly unreadable
verbiage), may I simply ask how /you/ think of the meaning of
(for example) the statement "either x > 1 or x <= 1", where x
is a variable, which has been introduced in an informal proof,
and you are still in the middle of the proof? No-one is asking
for this statement to be frozen, quantified, and then assigned a
truth value!
I can't understand what is bothering you about such
a statement. I would say that of course it has
a truth value. And if it is a valid proof, then
that truth value better be "T".
Why do you think we can't say "either x>1 or x<=1"
in a proof? If x is a real number, there aren't
any other possibilities. And why did you specify
"informal"?
- Randy
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Angus Rodgers
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- References:
- The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Angus Rodgers
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Angus Rodgers
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Angus Rodgers
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: quasi
- Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- From: Angus Rodgers
- The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- Prev by Date: Re: find limit (function in two variables)
- Next by Date: Re: Limit Guessing Algorithm
- Previous by thread: Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- Next by thread: Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
