Re: tommy1729 set axioms

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:41:19 EDT, amy666
<tommy1729@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On 15 Jul., 21:40, amy666 <tommy1...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Jessy wrote :

amy666 <tommy1...@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

 [] in [[]] AND NOT [] in [[]]

what is the union of [] and NOT [] ?

You're confused about what NOT means here.
 NOT
is
the negation that
applies to formulas, i.e., I mean:

  [] in [[]] and NOT ([] in [[]]).

NOT [] is meaningless.

oh i see ...

then i will have a second look on what you
wrote.

it still holds.

[] and NOT [] both in [[]].

no problem.


?? You still misinterprete NOT.
Your theory gives two contradictory answers to the
question "Is [] an element of [[]]?", namely "yes"
and "no" at the
same time.
(Provided our interpretation of the brackets you
introduced is right)
"Yes" because in general x is an elment of [x] by
definition
"No" because no x can be an element of the empty
set
[] (=[[]] by
Axiom)
by definition of empty set, especially if x=[].



--
Jesse F. Hughes
"If the world weren't rather strange, by now
I
should
at least be with
some research group talking about my number
theory
research."
-- James S. Harris learns the world
learns the world is a funny place

regards

tommy1729

regards

tommy1729


sure both yes and no since [] = NOT [].

No. If there were such a thing as "NOT []"
then there'd be no problem with both []
and "NOT []" being an element of the same
set. At least no purely logical problem.

But nobody but you has said anything about
this silly "NOT []" thing. People have pointed
out that your theory proves that "[] is an elemeent
of [[]]" is true and it _also_ proves that the very
same statement is false.

How you choose to define "NOT []" is
irrelevant to that. Your theory proves that
a certain statement is true and it also proves
the same statement is false. That means the
theory is inconsistent, by definition.

you have a point there...

but in this case it seems false and true are actually the same.

its like 5 + 0 contains 0 although it equals 5 + 0 - 0.

but by formal definition you and jesse have a point.



David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal
proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up
to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)

regards

tommy1729
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Help. What is a model?
    ... very clear in writing that you said: ... Well, Chip, no. Jesse was clear, but wrong. ... You expect to avoid the implication ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: tommy1729 set axioms
    ... David C. Ullrich ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: a conjecture !
    ... What is a "potential" removable singularity? ... analogue to Coo where G is gaussian curvature ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: 3 functional equations is max
    ... an explicit formal definition of "independent". ... That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up ... (John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads." ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: a conjecture !
    ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal ... "My talk about Godel to the post-grads." ...
    (sci.math)
Loading