sci.logic Google Group

Re: Minimal logic valid?

aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi (Aatu Koskensilta) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:45:41 UT

A mental station, indeed.
Wonderful!

Re: the problem with Cantor

aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi (Aatu Koskensilta) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:29:14 UT

Balthasar <nomail@invalid> writes, quoting Garth Dales at first:
I doubt anyone who's given these issues much thought shares the
bizarre view that the theory ZFC + ~CH leads to exciting mathematics,
if by that we mean something we don't get with ZFC already. Also, if
any two relatively consistent extensions of ZFC are equally valid we

Re: the problem with Cantor

nom...@invalid (Balthasar) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:14:28 UT

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:47:49 -0700 (PDT), MoeBlee <jazzm...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Well, there are many rather strong claims in this paper. :-)
B.
P.S.
But I guess concerning the formalist position -if there is such a thing-
he may be right (if so). That's why _imho_ most mathematicians who claim
to be "formalists" actually are rather (practical) "fictionalists".

Re: How do i construct a histogram

facetious_nickn...@hotmail.com (OP) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:14:57 UT

Wrong newsgroup - you probably want sci.stat.math or just sci.math.
This group is just about formal logic & such.
HTH

Re: Could the logic reasoning get new concept accept the premises appeared?

s...@sh163.net (Conbra) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:06:47 UT

On 8月7日, 下午7时43分, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...@tesco.net >
wrote:
The concept relation must be able to have the comparable property, the
concept algebra could draw the logical conclusions from these
relations.
Conbra

Re: the problem with Cantor

jazzm...@hotmail.com (MoeBlee) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:47:49 UT

212 Problem with Cantor
"THE formalist position". I hardly think so.
MoeBlee

Re: A consideration concerning the diagonal argument of G. Cantor

jazzm...@hotmail.com (MoeBlee) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:30:20 UT

Irrelevent analogy.
If X is the tree in your garden, then X is not an arbitrary object,
but rather X is the tree in your garden.
Yes, X is an object, but it is not a ARBITRARY object, since X is the
number one.
The problem here is that you don't read mathematics, so you don't
understand the mathematical sense of the word 'arbitrary'. When we say

Re: A consideration concerning the diagonal argument of G. Cantor

vir...@gmale.com (Virgil) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:07:14 UT

In article
<d7e04dc6-64e2-44bb-9ae0-7ac52 f726...@s50g2000hsb.googlegrou ps.com>,
"Botanic object" is a classification allowing many objects to satisfy it
and allowing objects satisfying it to satisfy other classifications as
well.
"The number one" is a particular object, and therefore not an arbitrary

Re: A consideration concerning the diagonal argument of G. Cantor

albst...@gmx.de (Albrecht) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:30:45 UT

MoeBlee schrieb:
You have problems with that? If I say, a tree is a botanic object, it
isn't any longer a tree but only a botanic object?
I say, X is an object, and X is one. Yes. You have read right.

How do i construct a histogram

whit...@aston.ac.uk — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:05:35 UT

How do i construct a histogram of this data? is it just a case of
plotting it to a graph, because im confused with the waiting time as
theres more than one value?
Then am really confused how to calculate the median waiting time?
how do you go about doing these
any help would be brilliant thanks
waiting time Frequency

Re: A consideration concerning the diagonal argument of G. Cantor

albst...@gmx.de (Albrecht) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:59:01 UT

Dik T. Winter schrieb:
Best regards
Albrecht S. Storz

Re: A consideration concerning the diagonal argument of G. Cantor

jazzm...@hotmail.com (MoeBlee) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:47:34 UT

No, you JUST SAID that X is the number one.
You said, "X is the first number, the number one [...]"
MoeBlee

Re: A consideration concerning the diagonal argument of G. Cantor

albst...@gmx.de (Albrecht) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:42:22 UT

MoeBlee schrieb:
I know what a sequence is. And this is all far away from my
considerations.
In the sequence of unitary natural numbers
X
XX
XXX
...
X is the first number, the number one, which contains one object, only
a first one.
XX is the second number, the number two, which contains two objects, a

Re: the problem with Cantor

nom...@invalid (Balthasar) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:34:18 UT

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:14:50 -0400, David Bernier
Well, if you [Aatu] say so.
"The formalist position is strictly that any two relatively consistent
extensions of ZFC are equally valid; I wish to know the theorems that
arise in both ZFC + CH and ZFC + ~CH. Both sets of axioms lead to
exciting mathematics; let both theories flourish!"

Re: Minimal logic valid?

janbu...@fastmail.fm (Jan Burse) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:30:26 UT

Aatu Koskensilta schrieb:
Oh it wasnt vacation. You were in prison.
No not in prison? Ok, a mental station.
Dont worry. You will get some cuddling here on sci.logic.
Including from me.
Bye