TonesInDeepFreeze

I don't speak of objects being implied. What are implied are statements (or propositions). And the mathematical representation I have mentioned doesn'...

Wrong. Just to merely state a sentence does not require proving the sentence. You are correct that in a formation sequence, P precedes ~P. But that do...

Not true. So you assert. That's a good example against your argument. We don't assume there is a burglar in the house, since we don't want to be const...

Sure, always nice work to get others to paint the white fence for you.

Wrong.

I don't know. Of course, in the physical world, dice are not perfect. We don't claim that the mathematical framework corresponds to every physical pai...

If you thought probability is meaningless, wouldn't you be just as happy if the doctor told you that the chance of surgery survival is 1% as if he tol...

It's not mathematically correct and there's no reason to think it's empirically correct. In an empirical situation, if you suspect that one side of th...

Any given experiment would be a finite number of events. But there there are always longer and longer experiments - more events - than any given finit...

Following up on tim wood: Given the assumption that there were 5 sixes, then what is the probability that the 6 roll sequence will be 6 sixes? That pr...

Both. That is entailed by remarks in an earlier post of mine. There is no equivocation. The second book is mapped to 2. And 2 is also the greatest ele...

Depends on the situation.

That's a non sequitur. Yes, to have a negation there is first a statement to be negated. But that doesn't entail anything about burden of proof.

So, as you understand that by 'count' I mean in the sense of 'successive numbering', you may see that my mathematical representation of it is correct ...

This tangent on counting arose from my response to your comment: And later you have said: Ordinarily, when someone says "I counted the books on the sh...

An analogy so attenuated in connection with logic that it's ridiculous.

That's not an argument logicians would give for the worthiness of logic. What logician ever said that? There is no sentence that can't be proven in so...

We prove negations often. You mentions bears. I'll mention termites. If you call an inspector to your house, and he reports "No termites", then you ma...

The way gambling against the house works is you give the house x amount of money. If you lose the bet then the house keeps your money. If you win the ...

And you don't understand what that means. Whatever you have in mind, I didn't say that one first declares an ordering. I said that the count itself im...

What should you commit? A bet? Or what? What is the payout? If the payout is proportionate to the odds, then mathematically it doesn't matter whether ...

A common misuse of "I call fallacy" occurs sometimes when a person cites ad hominem. One can pile all kinds of insult on another but alongside give a ...

They're informal fallacies, so there's wiggle room. Sometimes citing authority is reasonable in argument and other times not very reasonable, dependin...

No. It's more probable not to roll a six than to roll a six, in any circumstance - no matter what was rolled before. That's not the gambler's fallacy.

That's kind of okay in a very informal sense. But, just to be clear, it is not the definition of 'ordinal'. I don't know what you mean exactly by "the...

'count' is also a verb. But here I am mentioning two nouns. You don't even know what I'm saying. You don't even have the mathematical vocabulary. You ...

A better comparison is with the boy who declared, "The Emperor has no clothes."

Less than a perfect distribution would have you infer cheating? That's crazy. And even if there were an astronomically long streak, one would very hig...

Probability does not ensure that the six will occur, but that does not entail that probability ensures that the six will not occur. For any statement ...

We don't need infinitistic considerations to see that the gambler's fallacy is incorrect. The conditional probability, no matter the results of any fi...

True, inductive reasoning is not deductively valid. But inductive reasoning is a different form from deductive reasoning and has its own standards.

Wrong. A probability is not a surety of what will happen. A probability of 1/6 of the occurrence of the six doesn't ensure that the six will occur wit...

If lack of knowledge is innocence, then you are a saint.

In this context, there are two senses of 'count': (1) A count is an instance of counting. "Do a count of the books." (2) A count is the result of coun...

I doubt it.

We don't describe a count as a tuple. You don't even know what it is that you don't get.

The poster refers to 'classical logic', but doesn't know what classical logic is. I only glanced through that article just now, but it looks good to m...

That is not universally accepted by all philosophers of mathematics. Classical logic is exactly formalized. It's not vague. The subject is explicated ...

To get out of the wilderness, you could you formulate your notions in a way that other people can follow them, step by step, from basic to more involv...

The tuple notation is defined in mathematics. And, of course, for sequences of length at least 2, there are different permutations. That there are per...

You just don't get it.

Then: (1) doesn't belong here. We do not use '2' to name a book. (2) It seems your 'refer' might be close to what I mean by 'to pair with' or, more ev...

You seem to expect others to understand your notations without your having explained them from the bottom up. It borders on solipsism. Do you understa...

I don't do that. You present as so confused that I wonder whether you are posting as some kind of stunt or dumb cluck character.

We may infer, by whatever means, that there are a certain number of electrons or volts. That doesn't contradict that when we see discrete objects then...

You're doing it again! We do not use '2' to name a book. '2' does not denote a book. We can switch them so that we have: {<'Portnoy's Complaint' 1> <'...

Bijections are not 'validated' or 'invalidated'. The bijections {<'War And Peace' 1> <'Portnoy's Complaint' 2>} {<'Portnoy's Complaint' 1>} of course ...

The numeral '5' has meaning. The number 5 is not the numeral '5'. 5 is the count of a set of five books. 5 is the count of a set of five apples. 5 is ...

If I'm not mistaken, in another thread, you were using the word 'refer' in the sense of 'denote'. So if not 'denote' what exactly do you mean by 'refe...

What is the proof in layer math? What is the proof in layer math? In general, without stating axioms and a proof system, how do know what is true in l...