TonesInDeepFreeze

Yikes.

It was merely a math quip.

The crank enacts one of the starkest examples of mentally pathological illogic I've seen in a while: I say, in clear, emphatic, and unequivocal terms ...

It is not any more a contradiction for a set to have more than one ordering than it is a contradiction for a person to own more than one hat. It's not...

That needs work. It leaves out that for the most used overall system for mathematics, it is not the case that every truth is provable. It leaves out t...

Now like a child with an attention disorder, the crank asks me whether the members of a set are abstractions or concretes, after I explicitly said tha...

The crank mindlessly replies "Right, continue in your violation of the law of noncontradiction." The crank is so mentally deficient that he can't see ...

The crank says, "For you, a set may consist of concrete things, or it may consist of abstractions, because in your sophistry you do not differentiate ...

This deserves to be especially highlighted: The crank says, " has removed any distinction of an actual order, to say that the group, or set, has 24 or...

Then the sophist crank says "I know you never said such a thing. You mix up physical objects and mathematical objects as if there is no difference bet...

You wrote in the argument: So in my first post I captured that implication. And in my second post I gave a version in which instead they are premises:

Then you can't argue with me that you can argue with me.

It could be fixed this way: (1) E!xFx ... premise (2) pEx(Fx & Ax) ... premise (3) pEx(Fx & ~Ax) ... premise (4) {(1), (2), (3)} is consistent (5) pnE...

If I haven't made any mistakes here: At least for me, this is more exact and clear: (1) E!xFx ... premise (2) pExAx ... premise (3) pEx~Ax ... premise...

I don't know which of my posts or comments you are commenting on. In a recent post, I said that I don't understand the proof at the proof generator. I...

Thanks.

I'm saying that I'll take your latest note and incorporate it as I go over your argument again. Not waiting on you.

I don't understand. You said a certain formula is valid in S5. The proof generator shows a deduction of the formula. But I can't make sense of the ded...

I don't understand that proof. Where can I see a specification of S5 extended to a deduction calculus with quantifiers? I don't know what deduction in...

I hope it won't be too long that I'll have time to resume going over your argument with the emendations.

My questions were here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/914470 Your response was to switch to a different description of your idea. ...

Interesting. I hope I didn't bury the lede. I'm not all up about sarcasm. Rather, what I find important is (1) striving not to misrepresent a poster's...

I don't ask for apologies. But it's okay if you want to give them. But you embed into your apologies yet more items that I feel deserve response. Your...

Zeno's paradox concerns analysis of an actual physical event. Thomson's lamp concerns analysis of a hypothetical state-of-affairs. One difference is t...

@"Michael" I've not gone back to review all that's been said in this thread, and I need to catch up to your replies, but starting again from the begin...

Nicely said.

You first claimed that I was offensive to you. So I pointed out that you don't realize how offensive you often are. So I just gave you that info. I do...

wut? My response was to 'what's wrong with you tonight?', not so much to 'wut?'. Convenient for you now to self-justify by highlighting 'wut?' and not...

It is simple indeed: x is an element iff Ey xey x is a class iff (x=0 or Ey yex) x is a proper class iff (x is a class & ~Ey xey) x is a set iff (x is...

The crank clown can't understand what the rest of humanity understands: AN ordering of the children is not the ONLY ordering of the children. And back...

The crank says, "TPF's head sophist has a sense of humour." So the sophist crank finally comes close to a true sentence, but still only half true. I'm...

As far as S5 is concerned, if F is a formula, then AxF and ExF are both treated as if they are just a propositional letter. Is that not correct?

I do see now that to show that (3) is not the case, we need rely only on pnQ -> nQ and the fact that it is not the case that pQ |- nQ. But It is diffi...

You asked readers to consider a formal argument you started. Since that was interesting to me, I considered it in detail as far as I could. The argume...

I explain in detail. And it's a stupid thing to say that I just type stuff. But in post or even a series of them, I can't fit in an explanation all th...

The crank asked about rocks. But we were not talking about rocks. We have been talking about sets. Sets of rocks, or set of numbers, etc. Sets have or...

@"fishfry" Now that we got the axiom of extensionality straightened out, it's apropos to get the rest of the dissension worked out. It starts with the...

I wasn't clear; I didn't mean a URL link; I meant a reply link. Does the link in this post do what you want?

I think I'm with you that far. But I'm not sure what the following quotes mean or how they follow from the above quote: (What do you mean by 'logicall...

Yes, Tarski was very much concerned with both formal and natural languages.

I don't go to parties to talk about modal logic. Have your party hearty fun about the ontological argument. I'm not stopping you. I merely pointed out...

No, you are not correctly applying the formulas. This is correct: If it is not necessary that Q, then it is not possible that is necessary that Q. Tha...

Some people believe that Godel-Rosser has implications not confined to mathematics and questions in the philosophy of mathematics. They argue that God...

S5 does not say that pQ -> nQ. Or am I missing something in your context?

EDITED post: I think I see how you got : pEx(nQ) -> Ex(nQ) (I'm using 'Q' instead of e.g. the more specific 'Fx & Ax'.) I don't know the deductive sys...

Right. Thanks.

Godel-Rosser is: If T is a consistent formal theory adequate for arithmetic, then T is incomplete. The steps in the proof depend on T being a formal t...

Hey, calling cranks 'the crank' is my schtick. Please don't steal my act!

I'm very rusty in modal logic. How do you derive ('n' for necessary, 'p' for possible): pnQ -> nQ / We start with: Df. pQ <-> ~n~Q therefore, nQ <-> ~...

We can state the indiscernibility of identicals as a first order schema, no matter how many nonlogical symbols there are in the language. And we can s...