MOEBLEE and GEORGE GREENE *CANNOT* answer QUESTIONS!

Graham Cooper

unread,

Sep 27, 2012, 4:00:39 PM9/27/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

So what are you proving Cantor's Theorem with?
NAKED LOGIC or a SET THEORY?

f(1) = 0.111000..
f(2) = 0.442343..
f(3) = 0.555555..
...

ALL(f):N->R E(r):R A(n):N f(n)=/=r

Is that formula on the LEFT HAND SIDE or RIGHT HAND SIDE in ZFC?
Is it a NO-AXIOM-LOGIC formula or a ZFC formula?

You said RUSSELLS SET PROOF IS THE LHS of ZFC

!E(R) xeR<->!(xex)

****************************

LOGIC ALONE is either:
1/ INCONSISTENT
2/ DEPTH FIRST ORACLE DATAMINING

Just answer this question.
Can you or can you not spot a REDUNDANCY in your MOTIVE to DISPROVE
RUSSELLS SET in ZFC?

****************************

GRAHAM COOPER (BINFTECH)
UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND

--
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-MATHEMATICS
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-HYPERREALS
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-HALT-PROOF
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-QUESTIONS
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-POWERSET
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-THEOREM
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-FORALL
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-TURING
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-GODEL
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-TRUTH
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-PROOF
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-LOGIC
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-BRAIN
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-SETS
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-PERM
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-P-NP
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-LIAR
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-GUT
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-BB
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-AI

> WHICH CATEGORY DO THESE 2 FORMULA BELONG TO?

Whatever answer I give to that will not vitiate anything I've posted
here. And I really don't feel like playing answering games to
questions put to me ~ Moeblee (sci.logic)

Dissitra

unread,

Sep 27, 2012, 6:20:15 PM9/27/12

to

On Sep 27, 8:00 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So what are you proving Cantor's Theorem with?
> NAKED LOGIC or a SET THEORY?
>
> f(1) = 0.111000..
> f(2) = 0.442343..
> f(3) = 0.555555..
> ...
>
> ALL(f):N->R E(r):R A(n):N f(n)=/=r
>
> Is that formula on the LEFT HAND SIDE or RIGHT HAND SIDE in ZFC?
> Is it a NO-AXIOM-LOGIC formula or a ZFC formula?
>
> You said RUSSELLS SET PROOF IS THE LHS of ZFC
>
> !E(R) xeR<->!(xex)
>
> ****************************
>
> LOGIC ALONE is either:
> 1/ INCONSISTENT
> 2/ DEPTH FIRST ORACLE DATAMINING
>
> Just answer this question.
> Can you or can you not spot a REDUNDANCY in your MOTIVE to DISPROVE
> RUSSELLS SET in ZFC?
>
> ****************************
>
> GRAHAM COOPER (BINFTECH)
> UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND
>

>
> > WHICH CATEGORY DO THESE 2 FORMULA BELONG TO?
>
> Whatever answer I give to that will not vitiate anything I've posted
> here. And I really don't feel like playing answering games to
> questions put to me ~ Moeblee (sci.logic)

ok,ok, i go see 'George Grenn' but is quite a well strung database
from legal case extant, huh! FBI (UK ONLY now)

Dissitra

unread,

Sep 27, 2012, 6:30:56 PM9/27/12

to

On Sep 27, 8:00 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So what are you proving Cantor's Theorem with?
> NAKED LOGIC or a SET THEORY?
>
> f(1) = 0.111000..
> f(2) = 0.442343..
> f(3) = 0.555555..
> ...
>
> ALL(f):N->R E(r):R A(n):N f(n)=/=r
>
> Is that formula on the LEFT HAND SIDE or RIGHT HAND SIDE in ZFC?
> Is it a NO-AXIOM-LOGIC formula or a ZFC formula?
>
> You said RUSSELLS SET PROOF IS THE LHS of ZFC
>
> !E(R) xeR<->!(xex)
>
> ****************************
>
> LOGIC ALONE is either:
> 1/ INCONSISTENT
> 2/ DEPTH FIRST ORACLE DATAMINING
>
> Just answer this question.
> Can you or can you not spot a REDUNDANCY in your MOTIVE to DISPROVE
> RUSSELLS SET in ZFC?
>
> ****************************
>
> GRAHAM COOPER (BINFTECH)
> UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND
>

>
> > WHICH CATEGORY DO THESE 2 FORMULA BELONG TO?
>
> Whatever answer I give to that will not vitiate anything I've posted
> here. And I really don't feel like playing answering games to
> questions put to me ~ Moeblee (sci.logic)

I luv you (yeltsin...(thats a password in code)too!) lol
or a passcode for DNA gel sieves (local PING tests? legal codes for
patents, huh? and still no breast feeding in public i see !!!)

ummm

but i do..i truely do Yeltsin got there first, hurt,

Graham Cooper

unread,

Sep 28, 2012, 3:29:40 PM9/28/12

to

On Sep 29, 1:51 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

> On Sep 27, 4:00 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So what are you proving Cantor's Theorem with?

> > f(1) = 0.111000..
> > f(2) = 0.442343..
> > f(3) = 0.555555..
> > ...
>
> > ALL(f):N->R E(r):R A(n):N f(n)=/=r
>

> Your notation is incoherent, but, yes, basically, that's the idea.
> No function on N is onto R.
> This is NOT the way WE usually state the theorem, but, yes,
> we can use ZFC to construct, for any f:N->R you give us, an r
> that is not in the range of your f.
>
> It's EASIER to prove it indirectly via Russell's Paradox but that
> won't help unless you first agree that Russell's Paradox really is a
> paradox.

I'm going to side with Peter Olcott.

Since my general view is there are no IMPOSSIBILITIES for computers
that you can WORK WITH in maths.

I'll jump out on a limb here and say PARADOXES are just ILL-FORMED-
QUESTIONS,

I see no useful distinction between:

E(x) !(x=x)

and

E(r) A(x) xer<->!(xex)

when both can be formulated into something meaningful.

A(x) x=x

E(r) A(x) xer<-> ( !(xex) ^ (x=/=r))

THE SET OF ALL SETS THAT DON'T CONTAIN THEMSELVES.

The container set excluded for consistency.

Herc

Graham Cooper

unread,

Sep 28, 2012, 4:45:11 PM9/28/12

to

On Sep 29, 1:54 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 4:00 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > You said RUSSELLS SET PROOF IS THE LHS of ZFC
>

> JEEzus; I *did*NOT*.
>
> I said that ZFC *has*NOTHING*whatsoever* to do with ANY derivation

Right I checked for this quote and you said

derivations from logic can be pumped back into the LHS of more
derivation formulas in logic.

BUT, this is not true as it would incur an inconsistent transitive
closure over inference.

I think you need 2OL or 3OL to formula rules for resolution by
inference.

Herc

George Greene

unread,

Sep 29, 2012, 9:26:10 AM9/29/12

to

On Sep 28, 3:29 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I see no useful distinction between:
>
> E(x) !(x=x)
>
> and
>
> E(r) A(x) xer<->!(xex)
>
> when both can be formulated into something meaningful.

There's a huge distinction. = doesn't have to be part of logic.
First-order logic comes in both "with equality" AND a "without
equality" variant.
Without equality is better.
In that case "=" becomes re-definable. It's not usually defined in a
way that loses reflexivity, but it is at least possible that you could
have a reason for
wanting to do it that way.
The Russell's Paradox sentence by contrast IS JUST FALSE.

> A(x) x=x
^^^^^^^^
This IS NOT "making Ex[ ~x=x ] into something meaningful!
This is THE DENIAL OF Ex[ ~x=x ] !! DENYING something IS THE
OPPOSITE of "making it meaningful"!
It's the purest TRASHING of it that you can have!

> E(r) A(x) xer<-> ( !(xex) ^ (x=/=r))

This is meaningless until you come up with all 3 of an alternative set
theory that allows cyclic membership relations,
a theory of equality within that set theory, and some proofs that this
r is good for something.

> THE SET OF ALL SETS THAT DON'T CONTAIN THEMSELVES.
>
> The container set excluded for consistency.

Excluding the container set by itself won't help you with consistency.
In ZFC, NO set contains itself.
You have to come up with some OTHER set theory in which that's
POSSIBLE, first.
This other set theory will still REQUIRE lots of other sets to exist.
It may FORCE the existence
of r INside this set after all, which would again be inconsistent.
Naive set theory doesn't become consistent just because you decide to
put ~x=r on the end.