I'm not in the practice of editing Wikipedia articles. Meanwhile, my points about the article stand. More generally, a good amount of caution is warra...
That doesn't mean anything. We don't say "the set of all z". We say "the set of all z such that " Examples: the set of all z such that z is an even nu...
If x in x, then x in x no matter what other sets x is or is not in. If you don't agree or don't understand, then either you need to state your alterna...
You didn't answer the question. I won't bother to post it yet again. If you can find even one mathematician who can say what you mean by "L is a membe...
(1) The article conflates a language with a theory. (2) The proof in the article handwaves past the crucial lemma, thus appearing to commit a serious ...
Set theory does not have a "where". My question remains: You are using your own personal terminology for an unclear notion that no one other than you ...
The terminology in this context needs to be exact. (I use 'K' instead of 'LL' because it is not good notation to use a letter 'L' as a standalone cons...
A list is a sequence. S lists x if and only if x is in the range of S. In that case, x is not a member of S, but rather it is a member of the range of...
Saying 'semantical' adds nothing substantive in this context. The notion of "member of self" is not more than "x is a member of itself if and only if ...
"L is a member of itself in L" has no apparent meaning if it does not simply mean "L is a member of L". Nothing is added by saying "in L". If L is a m...
I think I've seen this one before: "Is the correct answer to this question 'no'?" If 'no' is the correct answer, then 'no' is not the correct answer. ...
A question is not rhetorical or not. An utterance of a question is rhetorical or not. An utterance of a question is rhetorical if and only if the utte...
It has everything to do with what you said. And I said that the exact answer to "Does L list itself?" is yes. Progress will begin upon you paying atte...
No, I explained the difference. I'll say it again, a list is a sequence. A sequence is a function whose domain is an ordinal. So the members of a list...
I don't know what you mean by that. I don't know what you mean by a property being instantiated in this context. I referred to any property. As I said...
I mentioned part of this before, but it was skipped: In ordinary mathematics: A list is a sequence. A sequence is a function whose domain is an ordina...
Agree on these points: (1) A theory is categorical if and only if all its models are isomorphic with one another. (2) First order Euclidean geometry i...
First order predicate logic may be formalized in two ways: (1) With logical axioms and rules of inference. (Known as 'Hilbert style'.) or (2) With onl...
Here's how I would put it: 2(x+5)= 2x+10 is understood to be implicitly universally quantified: Ax 2(x+5) = 2x+10 and that is true Then, by universal ...
More a painfully needed, though unsuccessful, intervention than a discussion. The points are simple: * In mathematics, in ordinary context, 'x=y' is t...
That's not an example of what I was talking about. I'm talking about general frameworks such as hold one's intuitions, perspective or philosophy, not ...
It was commented "I wonder what "nicknamed" would imply in supposed rigorous logic." The logic is not merely supposed to be rigorous. It is rigorous i...
Setting aside whether it's good to move a thread from the main table of contents, the moderator in his role as moderator would have been better not to...
If I'm not mistaken, the importance of Russell's role is that he noted that the paradox applies to Frege's system. I have this in my notes: Russell di...
Right. Ordinarily, 'classical logic' refers to any of the equivalent formulations of predicate logic, in first or higher orders, with the ordinary fea...
Just to be clear: Cantor's showed that the set of real numbers is uncountable. He didn't prove that its cardinality is aleph_1. The assertion that the...
To add to that, the practical benefits of abstract research are not always seen at first, but such investigations generate ideas that can lead to prac...
The law of identity is: Ax x=x That is one of the axioms of identity theory. I posted that earlier today, but of course you SKIPPED it. Since the axio...
An axiom is a formula. It has a meaning upon interpretation of the language. But also, it has our ordinary reading of it in a natural language. To und...
Now where were we? Oh, yes, the main crank's insistence that set theory handle order in the way he thinks it should be handled, even though he is igno...
Prediction: Corvus will reply yet again that he no longer wants to discuss the personal aspects of the postings, while he yet again renews his claims ...
And as I said, nobody's stopping you from not talking about it. While you are free to not post in an insulting manner. You were replying to me in an i...
Again, for the hundredth time, I don't remark on the ignorance, confusion and dishonesty of posters merely because they disagree with me. And, of cour...
You're making claims about the axiom vis-a-vis identity. So it is very relevant what the axiom proves regarding identity. And as I said: There is a di...
You don't see a point in them, but that doesn't stop you from posting insults. And, again, it is very important to distinguish between an ad hominem A...
First, it's not. Second, it is also truth that the main crank here is ignorant and confused about the subject. So it seems you think that ""distortion...
The main crank continues to argue by mere assertion about the ordering, repeating over and over and over his dogma, without even taking a peek at the ...
As usual, you evaded the point. Again: "distortion bias, prejudice and false judgement." That is not an insult but "ignorant and confused" is? As to w...
Comments