TonesInDeepFreeze

Hamlet is a character in a famous play.

Hamlet2Hamlet or Hamlet7Hamlet

2 The first and third characters are the blank character.

000 None of the characters are different from one another, so there are 0 "different" characters.

You skipped it again. You skipped that point twice now. Maybe you'll address it later, but as it stands, you fail to substantiate your claim as to wha...

Since hyperreals are formalizable in set theory, they are formalizable in internal set theory too.

Why in the world would I couch anything in terms of "absolutely infinite"? The notion of "absolute infinity" does not occur in classical mathematics s...

Infinite sets come into play in Calculus 1. What pedagogy would you propose for people to find derivatives without infinite sets?

That article does not describe potentially infinite sets or sequences in a manner that is properly paraphrased as "finite entities of a priori indefin...

The definition specifies a certain definite object. That is not at all how 'pi' is defined.

Set theoretically, it is not defined "as an equation or algorithm". Rather the constant symbol is defined by the ordinary definitional method of mathe...

Buh bye.

You're trolling. What was uninformed is the post::

I merely stated the needed corrections to your uninformed argument.

You just went right past what I wrote.

* 'infinity' as a noun does not ordinarily have a mathematical definition, though 'is infinite' does. A mathematical definition is never circular nor ...

* There are rigorous definitions of 'limit', in various contexts, in mathematics. * To my knowledge, there is no general mathematical definition of 'i...

What passages in the writings of Brouwer (or in writings about him) do you believe are fairly rendered that way?

It's impossible for you to understand? What is the first sentence in my previous post that you don't understand?

Try it this way: Some Americans are Brainy. All Statisticians are Brainy. We want to prove: No American that is not Brainy is a Statistician. But "No ...

Yes, we went through that with tim wood. Anyway, glad that you see now that (D) is the answer.

I don't know what to make of people who still can't see it after it's been explained six ways to Sunday.

Yes, it is a simple matter that (D) is the correct answer. No, many conclusions follow. And one of them is: No Ayes that are not Bees are Seas. Moreov...

Yes, "Not all Beas are Seas" is not a premise. But "All Beas are Seas" is also not a premise. So you don't get to use either in the inference. An infe...

Because you never said you gave it up; and your next post seemed to still be trying to connect existential import to what we had been discussing. Gran...

Yes,that matter hinges on existential import. But the problem in the first post of this thread does not. Nor does your other concern about undistribut...

Equivalences: "It is not the case that some cats are mammals" is equivalent to 'No cats are mammals" "It is not the case that all cats are mammals" is...

In basic logic: "Some cats are mammals" means "There is a thing that is both a cat and a mammal" "All cats are mammals" means "If a thing is a cat the...

That is ridiculous captiousness. The example is not vitiated by quibbles about the difference between coins and bills. The point of the example is tha...

Yes, so what? False. I already addressed that. Please read again: Please do not elide that again.

I said no such thing. The question was "which conclusion can be drawn?" The question was not "which conclusion can be drawn by the method of Aristotel...

If by 'above' you mean the sentence you wrote before that one, then, yes, undistributed middle. But if by 'above' you mean the discussion about Ayes, ...

It is true that some animals are cats. But it is not entailed by your premises. Wrong. In basic logic such as this, 'Some' means one or more. 'Some' d...

The house rules are everyday common reasoning.

It's not wrong. It's just that it is nowhere close to covering much of everyday deductive reasoning.

Because Aristotelian syllogisms do not exhaust even very basic reasoning.

False. I expanded nothing. I made no assumption other than the premise "All Seas are Beas". "All Seas are Beas" implies "All non-Beas are non-Seas" im...

This argument does not prove the existence of anything. The problem was not what conclusion is true, but rather what conclusion can be drawn from the ...

Don't need a logic professor. If x is a C, then x is a B. Therefore, if x is not a B, then x is not a C. So, perforce, if x is both an A and not a B, ...

Whether the conclusion is or not inferred according to syllogistic forms, it is inferred validly. All Seas are Bees entails No Ayes that are not Bees ...

Some Ayes are Bees All Seas are Bees . 1. Is not a premise and it is not entailed by the premises. 4. Is not made false by the premises.

The question is not the validity of (D) but the validity of inferring (D) from the premises. (D) is validly inferred from the premises. Adding an addi...

That is not needed to see that (D) is the correct answer. It is quite simple, without even need for Venn diagrams or symbolic logic. (D) can be couche...

Theorem: There is no S such that S is in the domain of S. Proof: Use axiom of regularity.

Outside of mathematics, I believe that some people do experience infinity in mediation, other spiritual practices, and with psychedelics. Also, one ca...

It cause for misunderstanding to say that in mathematics infinity is an object. Granted, there are objects sometimes called 'infinity', such as points...

Regarding a remark in a previous post, yes I am happy to suggest study materials that would provide understanding of these points: (1) A bijection bet...

So maybe what you mean by "0.1-1" is ? If you're going to ask me to explain why you have no proof, then it would help for you to use recognizable nota...

I asked you first:

You say it doesn't apply, yet you mentioned it directly in connection. I might think you are trolling me, but even worst trolls don't usually have you...