Re: nothing anyone would want to read (or: crank boxing (or: the death of the dance))

On Dec 17, 1:00 pm, galathaea <galath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 17, 12:41 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 17, 12:15 pm, galathaea <galath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 17, 10:51 am, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 17, 10:16 am, galathaea <galath...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

moeblee has
   amusingly
illustrated this bloodlust of the hardcore crank boxers
in a way that is directly relevant to david

moeblee calls x in x pathetic

No I didn't. Please do not put words in my mouth. What I said is that
x={x} is inconsistent with the REST OF tommy1729's axioms. I never
said that one can't have a consistent theory with x={x} or xex.

okay
  you called tommy pathetic for his theory
  where x in x and x = [x]

NO that is NOT what I said.

i love it how you deny what is linked

here's the direct quote:

"You're pathetic. Grow up. Get some good books."

Please READ what I just wrote you. I didn't deny saying he's pathetic.
What I denied is that I said he's pathetic merely for having a theory
in which x={x}. What is pathetic is that he doesn't have the maturity
to listen to the explanations as to why his theory is inconsistent nor
to read even a single book so that he's have even SOME understanding
of the subject he's spouting about

I said his theory is INCONSISTENT. I don't
object to a theory just for having a theoerem x={x}. But in
tommy1729's theory at that tiem, x={x} is inconsistent with his
axioms, which are inconsistent anyway. And I don't say he's pathetic
for just having an inconsistent theory, but rather for not having the
maturity to listen to the explanations as to two points: his theory is
inconsistent and that also it has undefined but not primitive
termninology.

and you were quite wrong about all of that

That is is about the third time you've said that now, but without
support. (I see later in this post you do say something about this;
we'll see how that goes).

Please state EXACTLY what you think is incorrect in Jesse's
demonstration and also with my own demonstration that tommy1729's (or
whatever his name was then) theory at that time is inconsistent.

it started with his first step
  that [x] might be defined as

forAll(x) forAll(y) (y in [x] <-> y = x)

which is already basically assuming what he wanted to show
(that his derivation would arrive at contradiction)

If that is not tommy1729's definition, then tommy1729 is welcome to
say exactly what his definition is. Moreover, later, tommy1729 himself
said virtually tantamount to the definition you just wrote.

And in my own remarks, as I recall, I stated that unless tommy1729
states a definition, I can only surmise what it is or might be. Later,
as I recall, tommy1729 did affirm (in whatever his own words) that
with x = [x] we get x in x. And in any case, if you go back to my
actual remarks, you will see how I specifically showed that his theory
is inconsistent, based specifically on what tommy1729 wrote as the
description of his theory.

MoeBlee


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Skolems Paradox
    ... sci.math_20050214.rtf:I suggest discarding all the non-logical axioms ... where in general theorems of ZFC minus regularity are theorems. ... Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory, is inconsistent, because of regularity. ... "p-adic integers") may well be infinite in precision and extent. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Skolems Paradox
    ... It could be formalized in ZFC, ... and that I am supposed to show ZF inconsistent. ... With the above notion about ordinals, they are combined into one single ... and the non-logical axioms that comprise ZFC ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Negating Quantifiers
    ... However, that predicate isn't implied by any non-contradictory sentences, and: ... The remainder is my opinion of your effort to prove that Peano arithmetic is inconsistent, which doesn't directly relate to the subject line but seems to come up in every one of your threads sooner or later. ... What I can and cannot prove is restricted by the necessary implications of whatever set of axioms I build my proofs on. ... To the best of my knowledge, none of the axioms of Peano arithmetic or first-order logic amount to "Peano arithmetic is consistent." ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: the return of the master : tommy1729
    ... mereological set theory, TST. ... the one that is inconsistent. ... have a key property in common that ZFC ... merely by showing that one of its axioms (thus ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Skolems Paradox and why is math the way it is?
    ... Just write down the negations of "the axioms", ... Isn't that much much stronger than the axiom ... specifically THE set theory of the STANDARD interpretation. ... of "theorems" that are not mutually inconsistent. ...
    (sci.math)
Loading