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

On Dec 18, 11:21 pm, lwal...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 18, 12:01 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 17, 10:48 pm, lwal...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
In a set theory, yes, that's what {x} would mean, but
in a _mereology_, that's not what [x] means.
So what? tommy1729 (or amy666, whatever his name is), did not specify
a mereology. He stated his system as a SET THEORY.

Actually, galathaea knows a lot more about mereology
than I do. So any answer I can give to MoeBlee's
question would be inferior to what galathaea would
say, and so if she can't convince MoeBlee, what
chance have I?

Convince me of WHAT? I haven't claimed nor disputed ANYTHING about
mereology here. Meanwhile, she is definitely incorrect that my proof
of the inconsistency of tommmy1729's set theory is incorrect.

Anyway, after reading galathaea's latest post, I've
realized that everyone else, including _myself_,
has been using the term "mereology" incorrectly.

Based on the way galathaea uses the word "mereology,"
I've realized that _every_ set theory has a mereology,
_including_ standard set theories such as ZFC.

ZFC is a _set theory_ with the _standard_ mereology.
TST is a _set theory_ with the _flattened_ mereology.

Thus, MoeBlee (as well as myself earlier) did not
use the word as she does.

I only used the word 'mereology' to respond that WHATEVER the case
about mereology, tommy1729's set theory is inconsistent.

Thus TST being a _set theory_
(which isn't a misnomer -- it is being proposed as a
set theory) doesn't mean that it has to have the
standard mereology (that is, membership in TST doesn't
have to be the same as that in ZFC).

And NO MATTER WHAT
he might categorize his theory as, it is inconsistent from his own
axioms as he gave them (and this is bolstered even by his own remarks
about [x] where he said that x is a member of [x], as I quoted again
above in this thread).

One way to understand how the flattened mereology works
is that it's similar to subset in the standard mereology
of ZFC.

Thus yex (or ycx as galathaea proposed) is analogous to
y subset x in ZFC.

Therefore the use of the roster method such as [x,y,z] as
the elements of a set in the flattened mereology is
analogous to the _union_ of the sets in the standard
mereology of ZFC, U({x,y,z}). (U = unary union.)

Thus tommy1729's x = [x] in his flattened mereology
corresponds to x = U({x}) (almost a tautology) in ZFC.

Whatever the merits of any of what you just said, it does not
eradicate the inconsistency in tommy1729's system as HE presented it.

If you wish to discuss some other mereological theory, then fine. But
please do not utterly confuse the matter of what tommy1729 HIMSELF
posted.

What tommy1729 _himself_ posted is that his theory is
a set theory. He _never_ posted that his theory must
have the standard mereology.

So what?! I didn't use any notion of mereology AT ALL. Rather, simply,
the axioms he gave, as HE gave them, are inconsistent.

Thus MoeBlee _did_
assume something tommy1729 didn't post -- namely that
being a set theory and having a flattened mereology
are mutually exclusive (as did I, before galathaea
taught me otherwise).

I made NO SUCH ASSUMPTION. Please, refer EXACTLY to what I wrote. And
you can also refer to the symbolic 1-10 argument I just gave too.
There is no mention of 'mereology' or 'ontology' or 'part-whole' or
ANYTHIHG EXCEPT first order logic applied to his axioms, as HE stated
them.

MoeBlee

.

Relevant Pages