Re: the return of the master : tommy1729
I.N.R.I. Logic
> On Jul 6, 7:41 pm, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 7, 1:40 am, Transfer Principle <lwal...@lausd.net> wrote:
> > > the errors are in lines 2 and 4. MoeBlee believes that
> > > these are accurate renderings of tommy1729's axioms from
> > > English to symbolic language of the theory, but I don't
> > > believe that these are accurate at all.
> > Ah, lwalke! Certainly your disguise was a rather poor one when you
> > decided to "defend" the stupidities that Tommy/Amy has posted in the
> > past, but that last parraph completely discovers you: so "you don't
> > believe" so and so, uh? And who gives half a damn what you "believe"
> > or not in this?
>
> And who gives half a damn what Tonio believes or not
> in this? Just because Tonio believes that the things
> tommy1729 posts are "stupidities" doesn't mean that
> everyone must agree with his opinion.
>
> I'm giving the reasons why I don't consider what
> tommy1729 posts to be stupid. Tonio is free to agree
> or disagree with my opinion, and I don't give half a
> damn that Tonio disagrees with my opinion.
>
> > Unless tommy, or whoever, doesn't make crystal clear
> > what he means with his nonsenses, and this is already way above
> > tommy's capabilities
>
> It's probably above Tonio's capabilities, too. And I
> admit that it's above my capabilities too. What Tonio
> calls "stupidity" is what others call "mereology," and
> the real expert on mereology is galathaea. And so her
> capabilities in mereology is way above those of anyone
> else on this thread.
>
> > Again, as usual, you insist in giving meaning, signification and
> > intention to OTHER people's messages
>
> I'd much rather give meaning to other people's messages
> than simply dismiss them as "stupidities."
Well spoken and I applaud you for taking a stance in the name of
constructivity.
Thanks!
Transfer Principle
You're welcome! Posters like MoeBlee and Tonio often claim
that they are open-minded about set theories other than
ZFC, including mereology and constructivist set theory,
yet their behavior in threads like this prove otherwise.
Tonico
As usual, lwalke, when you get excited you lose the track. The problem
since long ago has been twofold: one, that tommy's ramblings are about
things he hardly knows anything about and are full of undefined or ill-
defined stuff, and two that YOU have decided to undertake the task of
explaining and clarifying what tommy writes, usually in a way that
assigns to other people intentions, sayings and claims that those
other peopel NEVER intented, said or claimed.
You deeply admire, or like, or sympathize with tommy, and you hardly
want to make some sense out of his nonsensical posts. Fine, that's
good (let's be nice), but then you get into discussion with other
people, and when that other people points that tommy's posts make no
sense here or there, you decide that tommy actually meant this and
that in that part of his post. how do you know? And if he did, why
didn't he explicitly do so when he wrote his posts?
This all in an old business, and the last time you dared to give
significations, intentions, definitions, etc. to tommy's AND other
partipants' posts here, people made it clear to you that what you were
doing was a stupid, and sometimes even annoying, thing.
Stop assigning things to others, stop inventing stuff about others,
and stop making up definitions, clarifications and etc. to tommy's
writings: that is HIS job. Can't you understand this?
Lastly, a new example in this reincarnation as transfer principle of
yours, lwalke: you wrote that "What Tonio calls "stupidity" is what
others call "mereology". Well, let's see you pointing the exact place
where I called mereology, or ANYTHING equivalent to it, a stupidity.
I did call tommy's post stupidities, and one again you're making up
stuff.
Too bad you changed only your nick
Regards
Tonio
Herbert Newman
> Too bad you changed only your nick
No other way! When he searched for his brain (for replacement), he didn't
find it.
Herb
Transfer Principle
> On Jul 8, 7:21 am, Transfer Principle <lwal...@lausd.net> wrote:
> > You're welcome! Posters like MoeBlee and Tonio often claim
> > that they are open-minded about set theories other than
> > ZFC, including mereology and constructivist set theory,
> > yet their behavior in threads like this prove otherwise.
> As usual, lwalke, when you get excited you lose the track. The problem
> since long ago has been twofold: one, that tommy's ramblings are about
> things he hardly knows anything about
...and that Tonio hardly knows anything about either. The
only real expert on this subject is galathaea.
> YOU have decided to undertake the task of
> explaining and clarifying what tommy writes, usually in a way that
> assigns to other people intentions, sayings and claims that those
> other peopel NEVER intented, said or claimed.
Let's see what tommy1729 wrote about my posts earlier:
"and you have quite a good idea about what i believe."
So according to tommy1729 _himself_, I have quite a
good idea about what tommy1729 believes, contrary to
Tonio's stating that I claim what tommy1729 never
intended at all. So I have a better idea than Tonio
about what tommy1729 believes.
> You deeply admire, or like, or sympathize with tommy, and you hardly
> want to make some sense out of his nonsensical posts. Fine, that's
> good (let's be nice), but then you get into discussion with other
> people, and when that other people points that tommy's posts make no
> sense here or there, you decide that tommy actually meant this and
> that in that part of his post. how do you know?
I know from reading the discussion between tommy1729 and
galathaea about the subject of mereology. Therefore, my
interpretation about what tommy1729 intends is based on
what galathaea wrote about it.
> And if he did, why
> didn't he explicitly do so when he wrote his posts?
It's because tommy1729 doesn't know much about mereology --
and is still trying to _learn_ more about mereology, which
is more than we can say about Tonio.
> This all in an old business, and the last time you dared to give
> significations, intentions, definitions, etc. to tommy's AND other
> partipants' posts here, people made it clear to you that what you were
> doing was a stupid, and sometimes even annoying, thing.
And dismissing tommy1729's posts as mere "stupidities" is
sometimes an even more annoying thing.
Tonio is right that tommy1729 doesn't know much about how
mereology works. When galathaea saw this, she took it upon
herself to _teach_ tommy1729 how mereology works, rather
than simply call him stupid, as Tonio has done.
> Lastly, a new example in this reincarnation as transfer principle of
> yours, lwalke: you wrote that "What Tonio calls "stupidity" is what
> others call "mereology". Well, let's see you pointing the exact place
> where I called mereology, or ANYTHING equivalent to it, a stupidity.
> I did call tommy's post stupidities
Right, and based on tommy1729's discussion with galathaea,
his post _is_ equivalent to the flattened mereology. Thus,
by calling tommy1729's post "stupidities," Tonio _is_
calling something equivalent to mereology a "stupidity."
> Too bad you changed only your nick [and not your brain,
> adds Newman.]
Yeah, Tonio and Newman would like that. They'd love it if
I would change to a brain that's "intelligent" enough to
know that Tonio and Newman are 100% right and tommy1729's
posts are 100% "stupidities." I'd much rather change to a
brain "intelligent" enough to finish helping tommy1729
write a complete axiomatization to TST that would make
the theory equiconsistent with Z+proper classes. It's too
bad I can't change to that brain.
Tonico
Who EVER talked, or even hinted, about being "right" or wrong"? Do you
see how you make stuff up, lwalke? When did I even hinted about me
being right and tommy being wrong in this or that? His nonsense many
times isn't even wrong to talk about: he uses symbols with a well
defined signification in maths, and when somebody points out that what
he wrote he says: "Oh, wait: that symbol wasn't meant to be understood
like that, but like this"....like using in a mathematical paper the
symbol 7, and then write that in the naturals we have that 7 + 1 = 10,
and when somebody notes the nonsense then we jump and say: wait! when
I used the symbol "7" I actually meant what others call "9".
You wrote bove that tommy's post (about mereology, I presume) is
equivalent to the flattened mereology. What is this? I don't know, and
I don't intend to play it like I do. In fact, googling "flattened
mereology" I found...nothing except YOUR own words in past threads
about this. Of course, this does not mean that thing is worthless, but
I can't see how you can know that what tommy wrote is equivalent to
that thing...unless you can tell me, please, what the heck "flattened
mereology" is.
And, of course, it could just be that this thing just doesn't exist in
the web or even that I just couldn't find stuff about it.
You have decided that galathea knows better than ALL THE REST about
mereology. Why? Who knows...perhaps because she wrote more about it
than anyone else?
You finally conceede that tommy knows little about mereology; too bad
you didn't continue on this track and deduced the logical deduction:
tommy's talks, and a lot!, about something he doesn't know much about.
And it is not like he asks, explores or stuff. No, he CLAIMS,
determines and consistently rambles about that stuff he barely knows
about.
Then you wrote this pearl of argumentation that I hope someoen will
treasure and chersih as it deserves:
" I know from reading the discussion between tommy1729 and galathaea
about the subject of mereology. Therefore, my interpretation about
what tommy1729 intends is based on
what galathaea wrote about it."
Hmmm, let's see if we can make some order in here: you know about
mereology from reading the thread(s) where tommy and galathea talked
about this (and this did NOT stopped you from discussing over and over
with people that know a lot about set theory and stuff)...and then you
interpreted tommy's intentions (another person's intentions) based on
what galathea (yet ANOTHER person) wrote about it....ok, let's see if
I got this straight: you interpreted tommy's post(s) in mereoloy (and
discussed, and assigned intentions, definitions, thoughts, meanings,
etc. to tommy's posts) based on what third party (galathea) wrote
about it!!!
So, you established hearsay from hearsay....in mathematics!
Again, let us remember that we are NOT talking here about
interpreting, studying or translating what a person wrote about some
well-known stuff, but about what a person INVENTED about something:
how in the hollie mollie name of the world can you, or even galathea,
know that, in particular when you wrote that she was trying to teach
tommy about it!?
No contest, lwakle: you're the king of the hearsay, of the "I read
this, I understand, interpret and convey it like that, and I discuss,
argue, quarrel about it like those".\\
A pity, really...
Tonio
MoeBlee
You're a LIAR. Show one post where I expressed any reluctance
whatsoever to allow such theories as mereology and constructive set
theory. I read about Lesniewski and about Myhill's JSL article on
constructive set theory and in the relevant parts of Van Dalen and
Troelstra's two volumes, before you even started POSTING in these
groups.
A clue: Stating that tommy gave certain axioms that he HIMSELF said
were the set theory (or ZFC, whatever he said) axioms and then a
definition but that then just saying "it's consistent because it's
mereology" is silliness is NOT being closed minded about mereology and
constructive set theory.
Stop LYING about me.
MoeBlee
P.S. Here's my "consistent" theory in classical first order logic
(with the sole primitive 'R'):
ExAy(Ryx <-> ~Ryy).
It's consistent because it's not set theory but rather it's
schnozzolaology theory.
Now don't dispute me on this, unless you want to stand guilty of being
closed minded about schnozzolaology theory!
MoeBlee
David R Tribble
>> Posters like MoeBlee and Tonio often claim
>> that they are open-minded about set theories other than
>> ZFC, including mereology and constructivist set theory,
>> yet their behavior in threads like this prove otherwise.
>
MoeBlee wrote:
> You're a LIAR. Show one post where I expressed any reluctance
> whatsoever to allow such theories as mereology and constructive set
> theory. I read about Lesniewski and about Myhill's JSL article on
> constructive set theory and in the relevant parts of Van Dalen and
> Troelstra's two volumes, before you even started POSTING in these
> groups.
Take comfort in the fact that most readers here (I would
think) are quite aware of Walker's, um, dissonance regarding
"standard" and "non-standard" set theorists.
I, for one, can't take anything he says seriously about what
"the standard theorists" say or believe. I've given up trying
to figure out what he hopes to accomplish by trying to interpret
the various crank postings here as the foundations of actually
meaningful math.
MoeBlee
By the way, Mr. Transfer Principle, you refer to "MoeBlee's criteria
for definitions", but you'd be much more informative if you referred
to them as "Lesniewski's criteria", which is the same Lesniewski who
is so important in the development of your much admired subject of
mereology. And, to emphasize and be clear, these are criteria you can
find in just about any textbook on mathematical logic, and even in the
two set theory books you have - the one by Suppes and the one by Levy.
Meanwhile, I have to confess that I am relishing you making a fool of
yourself by claiming that the following is NOT a correct application
of the rule of universal instantiation:
AxEbAy(yeb <-> (yex & (yey & ~yey))
EbAy(yeb <-> (yex & (yey & ~yey)) ... universal instantiation
I LOVE and ADMIRE your willingness to be the clown!
MoeBlee
Transfer Principle
> P.S. Here's my "consistent" theory in classical first order logic
> (with the sole primitive 'R'):
> ExAy(Ryx <-> ~Ryy).
> It's consistent because it's not set theory but rather it's
> schnozzolaology theory.
> Now don't dispute me on this, unless you want to stand guilty of being
> closed minded about schnozzolaology theory!
OK, here's the difference between mereology and schnozzolaology.
Obviously, what MoeBlee is trying to argue is that if one would
apply FOL= to his lone axiom:
> ExAy(Ryx <-> ~Ryy)
one would obtain a contradiction (Russell's paradox), and if one
would apply FOL= to the axioms:
> 1 Ax x=[x] .... axiom
> 2 Ay(y in [x] <-> y=x) ... axiom
> 4 Ex Ay y not-in x ... axiom
one would obtain a contraction, so that the former theory would
be inconsistent if and only if the latter theory is inconsistent
regardless of the labels "mereology" and "schnozzolaology."
The difference? MoeBlee stated his axiom symbolically, so that
one can apply FOL= to it to derive the contradiction. On the
order hand, tommy1729 _didn't_ state his axioms symbolically
(except for "Ax x=[x]" of course), but stated them in _English_,
so that one can't apply FOL= to them unless one can rewrite them
in symbols -- conversion from meta to object language.
My argument was _never_ that FOL= applied to Axioms 1,2,4 does
not lead to a contradiction, or that somehow the "mereology"
label could cover up the contradiction. My argument was that
Axioms 2,4 don't represent a faithful translation of tommy1729's
desiderata from English to object language. The purpose of the
label "mereology" is to figure out what tommy1729's desiderata
actually are, so that we'd know _how_ exactly to translate the
axioms from English to object language.
Here's a more apt analogy. Suppose we were to introduce a theory
called "schnozzolaology," and we state that in this theory there
is an axiom that provides for the existence of a "Russell set,"
which is a set that contains all and only the sets that don't
contain themselves. Now the question is, is:
> ExAy(Ryx <-> ~Ryy)
a faithful translation of this axiom from English to object? If
so -- and on the surface it does -- then of course one would be
likely to write the proof:
> ExAy(Ryx <-> ~Ryy) ... axiom
> Ex(Rxx <-> ~Rxx) ... universal instantiation
> Rxx <-> ~Rxx ... contradiction
and declare the theory inconsistent.
But what if the translation isn't faithful at all? For example,
it could be that in "schnozzolaology," there are two types of
objects, "schnozzes" and "schnoozes," which act similar to
sets and proper classes, respectively. And so, just as classes
can only contain sets as elements, we find out that only
schnozzes can be elements of other objects. Thus, the line:
> ExAy(Ryx <-> ~Ryy)
would _not_ be a faithful rendering of the axiom. Instead, it
would be more like:
> ExAy((y is a schnozz & Ryx) <-> ~Ryy)
And "schnozz" might be a primitive, or there might even be an
ingenious way to define "schnozz" so that the usual proof of
Russell's paradox doesn't occur (i.e., so that the proposed
Russell set would be a "schnooz" rather than a "schnozz").
The word "schnozzolaology" sounds like a word MoeBlee might
have made up -- but then again, Tonio thought that I had made
up the word "mereology" (and I'll address a separate post to
Tonio a little later). It could be the "schnozzolaology" is
already an established term in mathematical literature, and
if one already knew how "schnozzolaology" works, then one
would already be familiar with "schnozzes" and know that only
"schnozzes" can be elements. Therefore, the use of the word
"schnozzolaology" tells the reader _how_ to translate an
axiom from English to object language. The word doesn't cover
up the contradiction -- it tells how to translate the English
in order to avoid the contradiction.
And so the same is with "mereology." MoeBlee already admitted
in the other thread that "mereology" dates back to the time
of the mathematician Lesniewski. I don't know whether the
axioms supplied by galathaea are Lesniewski's or not -- but
assume for now that they are. Then, when tommy1729 uses the
axiom "an empty set exists," we should go back to galathaea
or Lesniewski to see how to translate this into English. And
to galathaea (and probably Lesniewski as well), if [] is the
empty set, then we can prove that:
[] in [] (or []c[])
which means that:
> 4 Ex Ay y not-in x ... axiom
is not a faithful rendering of "an empty set exists." The
word "mereology" isn't a way to cover up the contradiction,
instead it's a flag to indicate that one shouldn't use the
ZFC Empty Set axiom, but an axiom that makes sense with the
theories of galathaea and Lesniewski.
MoeBlee
> tommy1729 _didn't_ state his axioms symbolically
> (except for "Ax x=[x]" of course)
No, he stated them by NAMING them as the particular set theoretic (or
"ZFC", or whatever his exact wording) that he was adopting. So, if he
meant them to be other than the ordinary Z axioms, he would need to
SAY SO.
In particular, when he mentions that he adopts the empty set axiom it
would be LUDICROUS for him to expect anyone NOT to take that as "ExAy
~yex" but rather as "ExAy xey" (or use 'c' instead of 'e', it matters
not). And then later somewhere or another mumbling some assent to
somebody something about "mereology" does not constitute saying "Wait,
I take back the empty set axiom that I mentioned earlier and instead
I'm using "ExAy xey". IF he had said that, then, upon my noticing
that, or being notified of that, then OF COURSE, I would have to
recognize that the theory he is NOW stating is different from the one
he ORIGINALLY stated. And, moreover, just as you may find in my
original proof, certain disclaimers to the very effect that I am
taking tommy's adoption of "set theory" (or "ZFC" or whatver word he
used) axioms at face value (especially, as in retrospect, he made NO
mention at that time that he doesn't really mean the set theory axioms
but rather something about mereology that he is merely GESTURING
toward by mentioning the specific set theory axioms he mentioned.
So, unless he states some specific revision to the axioms and
definition he gave, the axioms along with his definition, AS HE GAVE
THEM, are inconsistent. And YOUR OWN revision is YOUR system, whatever
that might be in RELATION to tommy's system AS HE STATED it and as it
still stands uncorrected by him, since mumbling something about
mereology is not a correction of axioms, as a correction of axioms
requires saying "Okay, not that one, but THIS one (some particular
actual axiom, not just a mumble about 'mereology') (or perhaps some
unambiguous description of a set of axioms) instead".
You are exerting too much verbiage trying to rationalize this.
So, go ahead and present whatever axioms you like that you consider to
be INSPIRED by tommy's system. That is a DIFFERENT matter though.
Meanwhile, I'm finding it DELICIOUS that you are so willing to make a
fool of yourself by claiming that an my instance of
AxP
____
P
is not valid universal instantiation.
MoeBlee
MoeBlee
And recently you've been plain lying about me again. I am asking you
to stop doing it. I am asking you to stop reading into my posts, WAY
PAST what I actually posted, to twist into something I did not say and
is not implied by what I said. It wouldn't be so bad if it were an
occasional innocent misparaphrase or misunderstanding, but you've
resorted to just blatant lying.
MoeBlee
Transfer Principle
> On Jul 8, 10:00 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...@lausd.net> wrote:
> > Yeah, Tonio and Newman would like that. They'd love it if
> > I would change to a brain that's "intelligent" enough to
> > know that Tonio and Newman are 100% right and tommy1729's
> > posts are 100% "stupidities." I'd much rather change to a
> > brain "intelligent" enough to finish helping tommy1729
> > write a complete axiomatization to TST that would make
> > the theory equiconsistent with Z+proper classes. It's too
> > bad I can't change to that brain.
> Who EVER talked, or even hinted, about being "right" or wrong"? Do you
> see how you make stuff up, lwalke? When did I even hinted about me
> being right and tommy being wrong in this or that? His nonsense many
I concede this point to Tonio. I admit that I forgot that
there are often three levels of correctness, namely
"right," "wrong," and "not even wrong." And sometimes,
tommy1729 is considered to be "not even wrong."
This is one reason I feel compelled to intercede, so that
I can rewrite tommy1729's "not even wrong" statements into
those that are at least "wrong." Often times, I rewrite
something that's "not even wrong" into a sensible statement
in order to _ask_ whether it's right or wrong.
But Tonio would just state that tommy1729's statements are
"not even wrong," rather than see whether the corrected
sensible statement is right or wrong, nor if wrong, how to
make it right.
> You wrote bove that tommy's post (about mereology, I presume) is
> equivalent to the flattened mereology. What is this? I don't know, and
> I don't intend to play it like I do. In fact, googling "flattened
> mereology" I found...nothing
Neither galathaea, tommy1729, nor I invented the word
"mereology" at all. Indeed, the first sci.math poster to
use the word "mereology" was zuhair. One established
mathematician who worked in mereology was Lesniewski,
mentioned by MoeBlee in this thread. A good website to
learn more about mereology is at Stanford:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/
Admittedly, the words "flat" or "flattened" don't appear
at Stanford. I know that galathaea used the term "flat"
to describe mereology. Actually, zuhair was the first to
use the term "flat sets."
The word "flatten" is often used by computer programmers,
especially LISP programmers, to describe taking a list
whose entries are themselves lists and combining them
into a list without lists as entries -- the word "flat"
suggests combining "levels" of lists within lists within
lists to a list with a single, flat "level."
Another way to think about what "flatten" means is to
consider the set theory ZFC+urelements. Then if x is a
set, then x flattened would be the set of all urelements
of the transitive closure of x.
> You have decided that galathea knows better than ALL THE REST about
> mereology. Why? Who knows...perhaps because she wrote more about it
> than anyone else?
She certainly knows more about mereology than Tonio, who
admits that he doesn't know what mereology is. If there
is a more expert mereologist on sci.math than galathaea,
then I wish that person would enter the thread and
straighten out tommy1729's mereology once and for all.
> Then you wrote this pearl of argumentation that I hope someoen will
> treasure and chersih as it deserves:
> " I know from reading the discussion between tommy1729 and galathaea
> about the subject of mereology. Therefore, my interpretation about
> what tommy1729 intends is based on what galathaea wrote about it."
> Hmmm, let's see if we can make some order in here: you know about
> mereology from reading the thread(s) where tommy and galathea talked
> about this (and this did NOT stopped you from discussing over and over
> with people that know a lot about set theory)
Exactly -- who know a lot about _set theory_. I don't deny
that Tonio knows more about _set theory_, especially ZFC,
than I do.
When someone wants to know more about set theory, then
Tonio is the right person to ask. When someone wants to know
more about mereology, then galathaea suits better. And right
now, I want to know more about mereology.
> So, you established hearsay from hearsay....in mathematics!
> A pity, really...
Yes, it's a pity that I have to establish "hearsay" in order
to extract a sensible statement out of something that Tonio
considers "not even wrong." But I'd rather search for the
sensible mereological theory then simply dismiss tommy1729's
post as being "not even wrong" and "stupidity." If only that
expert mereologist whom Tonio has alluded would post and fix
tommy1729's theory for good!
Transfer Principle
> MoeBlee wrote:
> > You're a LIAR. Show one post where I expressed any reluctance
> > whatsoever to allow such theories as mereology and constructive set
> > theory. I read about Lesniewski and about Myhill's JSL article on
> > constructive set theory and in the relevant parts of Van Dalen and
> > Troelstra's two volumes, before you even started POSTING in these
> > groups.
> "the standard theorists" say or believe. I've given up trying
> to figure out what he hopes to accomplish by trying to interpret
> the various crank postings here as the foundations of actually
> meaningful math.
What I hope to accomplish is to discuss theories other than
ZFC, in a forum such that proponents of the theory can give
its advantages, and opponents of the theory can give its
disadvantages, without words such as "crank" being thrown
around repeatedly. Reading an alternate theory in a book is
undesirable because of the money that has to be spent as
well as the lack of interaction with the inventor of the
proposed theory.
At any rate, I hope to accomplish more by doing what I'm
doing now than by simplying throwing away so-called "crank"
theories as being "rubbish" that's "not even wrong."
MoeBlee
> On Jul 8, 9:16 pm, David R Tribble <da...@tribble.com> wrote:
>
> > MoeBlee wrote:
> > > You're a LIAR. Show one post where I expressed any reluctance
> > > whatsoever to allow such theories as mereology and constructive set
> > > theory. I read about Lesniewski and about Myhill's JSL article on
> > > constructive set theory and in the relevant parts of Van Dalen and
> > > Troelstra's two volumes, before you even started POSTING in these
> > > groups.
> > I, for one, can't take anything he says seriously about what
> > "the standard theorists" say or believe. I've given up trying
> > to figure out what he hopes to accomplish by trying to interpret
> > the various crank postings here as the foundations of actually
> > meaningful math.
>
> What I hope to accomplish is to discuss theories other than
> ZFC, in a forum such that proponents of the theory can give
> its advantages, and opponents of the theory can give its
> disadvantages, without words such as "crank" being thrown
> around repeatedly.
For the thousandth time, people don't usually get called 'crank'
merely for proposing theories other than ZFC!
< Reading an alternate theory in a book is
> undesirable because of the money that has to be spent as
> well as the lack of interaction with the inventor of the
> proposed theory.
Penny-wise/brain-foolish.
> At any rate, I hope to accomplish more by doing what I'm
> doing now than by simplying throwing away so-called "crank"
> theories as being "rubbish" that's "not even wrong."
Wonderful. Meanwhile, please stop lying about me.
MoeBlee
Marshall
But that's his favorite technique! How would he wind
people up so effectively without it?
Marshall
Transfer Principle
> P.S. to Jul 8, 3:08 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@hotmail.com>:
> yourself by claiming
...or, to be more precise, repeating Ullrich's claim...
> that the following is NOT a correct application
> of the rule of universal instantiation:
> AxEbAy(yeb <-> (yex & (yey & ~yey))
> EbAy(yeb <-> (yex & (yey & ~yey)) ... universal instantiation
And I repeat Ullrich's response:
"You can't erase the initial "Ax" in the first line except
in a context where we're assuming that something exists."
So since MoeBlee considers my declaring his use of UI as
invalid to be "delicious," he might consider Ullrich's
declaring his use of UI as invalid to be "delicious," too.
> Meanwhile, I'm finding it DELICIOUS that you are so willing to make a
> fool of yourself by claiming that an my instance of
> AxP
> ____
> P
> is not valid universal instantiation.
In the other thread, MoeBlee mentions "domains of discourse,"
in that universal instantiation allows one to instantiate to
any object in the domain of discourse. But unless one can
prove that the object really is in the domain of discourse,
one can't validly instantiate to it -- especially not when
trying to prove that the object really _is_ in the domain of
discourse (which would obviously be circular). And if the
domain of discourse happens to be _empty_, then one can't
instantiate to any object at all.
And so I find it "delicious" that MoeBlee thinks that he can
instantiate to objects that aren't in the domain of discourse
(or at least not yet proved to be there).
Tonico
Who claimed you did?
Indeed, the first sci.math poster to
> use the word "mereology" was zuhair. One established
> mathematician who worked in mereology was Lesniewski,
> mentioned by MoeBlee in this thread.
I did know that before the very first thread on this.
A good website to
> learn more about mereology is at Stanford:
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/
Thank you very much: I'm not interested at all at the moment, but I
shall treasure the info for the unlikely case that I shall be
interested in that at some point int he future.
>
> Admittedly, the words "flat" or "flattened" don't appear
> at Stanford. I know that galathaea used the term "flat"
> to describe mereology. Actually, zuhair was the first to
> use the term "flat sets."
>
> The word "flatten" is often used by computer programmers,
> especially LISP programmers, to describe taking a list
> whose entries are themselves lists and combining them
> into a list without lists as entries -- the word "flat"
> suggests combining "levels" of lists within lists within
> lists to a list with a single, flat "level."
>
> Another way to think about what "flatten" means is to
> consider the set theory ZFC+urelements. Then if x is a
> set, then x flattened would be the set of all urelements
> of the transitive closure of x.
>
> > You have decided that galathea knows better than ALL THE REST about
> > mereology. Why? Who knows...perhaps because she wrote more about it
> > than anyone else?
>
> She certainly knows more about mereology than Tonio, who
> admits that he doesn't know what mereology is.
You again demonstrate to all that you are either deeply stupid, or
ashtonishingly dishonest and a huge liart, or a very poor reader: I
did NOT say and/or admit nothing of the like simply because that is
not true: I do know a little bit about mereology. What I wrote
(attention! read the the following v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y!!) is
that...I...do...not...know...what...flattened...mereology...is.
Hmmm...did you get that?
Of course, it may very well be that galathea, and many others, know
much more about mereology than I do, among other things because that
is not a subject that specially appeals to me.
If there
> is a more expert mereologist on sci.math than galathaea,
> then I wish that person would enter the thread and
> straighten out tommy1729's mereology once and for all.
>
Well, it may be that not everybody is so desperately eager in
correcting brats with a nasty attitude when they write their
stupidities, just like you seem to be, for a reason that I just cannot
see.
> > Then you wrote this pearl of argumentation that I hope someoen will
> > treasure and chersih as it deserves:
> > " I know from reading the discussion between tommy1729 and galathaea
> > about the subject of mereology. Therefore, my interpretation about
> > what tommy1729 intends is based on what galathaea wrote about it."
> > Hmmm, let's see if we can make some order in here: you know about
> > mereology from reading the thread(s) where tommy and galathea talked
> > about this (and this did NOT stopped you from discussing over and over
> > with people that know a lot about set theory)
>
> Exactly -- who know a lot about _set theory_. I don't deny
> that Tonio knows more about _set theory_, especially ZFC,
> than I do.
>
Even that could be a wrong statement: how in the world can you
possibly know that, for the Great Pumpkin's sake?! As far as I know,
you could know way more that I do about ZFC and stuff. Please do stop
assuming unbased stuff about OTHERS.
> When someone wants to know more about set theory, then
> Tonio is the right person to ask.
Again the same nonsense as above...**sigh**
When someone wants to know
> more about mereology, then galathaea suits better. And right
> now, I want to know more about mereology.
>
Good for you
> > So, you established hearsay from hearsay....in mathematics!
> > A pity, really...
>
> Yes, it's a pity that I have to establish "hearsay" in order
> to extract a sensible statement out of something that Tonio
> considers "not even wrong." But I'd rather search for the
> sensible mereological theory then simply dismiss tommy1729's
> post as being "not even wrong" and "stupidity." If only that
> expert mereologist whom Tonio has alluded would post and fix
> tommy1729's theory for good!
What expert mereologist have I alluded at all? Dude, you must be on
meds...and pretty strong ones, indeed! Behold what happened to M.J.
and take care, please.
Tonio
Pd. Stop making up stuff.
Transfer Principle
> On Jul 9, 2:01 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...@lausd.net> wrote:
> > tommy1729 _didn't_ state his axioms symbolically
> > (except for "Ax x=[x]" of course)
> No, he stated them by NAMING them as the particular set theoretic (or
> "ZFC", or whatever his exact wording) that he was adopting. So, if he
> meant them to be other than the ordinary Z axioms, he would need to
> SAY SO.
Let's look at the recent post of cartman18, who appears to
be an expert on mereology. I repeat cartman18's post for
emphasis here:
> 2 Ay(y in [x] <-> y=x) ... axiom
> 4 Ex Ay y not-in x ... axiom
cartman18:
"I dont think that can be true in a flat mereology and i doubt if it
was said or intended."
And so despite MoeBlee insisting that line 2 was either
said or intended by tommy1729, we see that cartman18,
the mereology expert, says it's doubtful. Line 2 was
definitely never _said_ by tommy1729, and cartman18
knows that someone working in mereology wouldn't
_intended_ to say it either.
"For instance if x is a set itself , that contains y and 'in' is
considered to intend the union of the meanings : element of / subset
of / element of subsets of / subsets of subsets of /
Then "2" does not follow."
This is the key point here. Since the symbol "in" (or
"e", or "c", or whatever the primitive is) is intended
to mean _both_ element _and_ subset, we see that:
> 2 Ay(y in [x] <-> y=x) ... axiom
isn't even possible because if y is a _subset_ of x,
y is a priori in x even though y isn't itself x. In
flat mereology, therefore, there usually is _no_ set
such that y is in the set iff y=x. And so, I repeat
cartman18's line once again for emphasis:
"Then "2" does not follow.
And that does not violate the principle " elementhood = subset " that
tommy/galathaea ( who ? ) came up with."
Line 2 of MoeBlee's proof doesn't follow from tommy1729's
explicitly expressed desiderata that the notions of
elementhood and subsethood be a single concept. Therefore,
MoeBlee, while having proved that lines 1,2,4 are
together inconsistent, hasn't proved that the theory TST
is in fact inconsistent.
> You are exerting too much verbiage trying to rationalize this.
Maybe I am. If galathaea can't convince MoeBlee that he
doesn't have a proof that TST is inconsistent, why would
I have any better chance at convincing him? But let's see
whether the words of cartman18 can convince MoeBlee that
he doesn't have an inconsistency proof.
Transfer Principle
> And recently you've been plain lying about me again.
I address some of these "lies" in the Ullrich thread, in
a post directed to Hughes. That post contains proposed
corrections to some of these "lies."
doug
Transfer Principle wrote:
Why in the world are you posting this to the physics group?
We have enough cranks here as it is.
MoeBlee
> On Jul 9, 11:04 am, MoeBlee <jazzm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > P.S. to Jul 8, 3:08 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@hotmail.com>:
> > Meanwhile, I have to confess that I am relishing you making a fool of
> > yourself by claiming
>
> ...or, to be more precise, repeating Ullrich's claim...
NO, Ullrich did NOT claim that the step is not valid universal
instantiation!
You are totally confused.
> > that the following is NOT a correct application
> > of the rule of universal instantiation:
> > AxEbAy(yeb <-> (yex & (yey & ~yey))
> > EbAy(yeb <-> (yex & (yey & ~yey)) ... universal instantiation
>
> And I repeat Ullrich's response:
>
> "You can't erase the initial "Ax" in the first line except
> in a context where we're assuming that something exists."
So what? His point is NOT that the application of universal
instantiation there is INVALID!
> So since MoeBlee considers my declaring his use of UI as
> invalid to be "delicious," he might consider Ullrich's
> declaring his use of UI as invalid to be "delicious," too.
You're totally confused. The contention I had with Ullrich is NOT as
to the validity of my use of universal instantiation.
> > Meanwhile, I'm finding it DELICIOUS that you are so willing to make a
> > fool of yourself by claiming that an my instance of
> > AxP
> > ____
> > P
> > is not valid universal instantiation.
>
> In the other thread, MoeBlee mentions "domains of discourse,"
> in that universal instantiation allows one to instantiate to
> any object in the domain of discourse.
Did I ACTUALLY put it in that way? If I did, then it is not precise.
Universal instantiation allows one to instantiate to a TERM that is
free for the variable in the matrix. Universal instantiation is
SYNTACTICAL. However, of course, the semantical upshot is that if a
property holds for all objects in a domain of discourse then that
property holds for any particular object in that domain of discourse.
> But unless one can
> prove that the object really is in the domain of discourse,
> one can't validly instantiate to it
You're TOTALLY confused. Universal instantiation is a SYNTACTICAL rule
of inference. The instantiation is to a TERM.
(Technical notes: I've actually seen systems that have the rule of
universal instantiation written so that instantiation requires first
proving an existence clause (this works to get passed the problem of
definite descriptions that don't properly refer); but that is not what
is at stake here, as my use is in plain first order logic that doesn't
have that special formulation. Also, some systems require
instantiations not be to the same variable but rather to 'temporary
constants' or things like that. But again, my use is not in such
systems but rather in plain first order logic as found in dozens and
dozens of textbooks; and my instantiation to the same variable could
just as well be replaced in my proof to whatever temporary constant
and the proof still goes through.)
> -- especially not when
> trying to prove that the object really _is_ in the domain of
> discourse (which would obviously be circular). And if the
> domain of discourse happens to be _empty_, then one can't
> instantiate to any object at all.
YOU DON'T LISTEN. Plain first order logic has a semantics that
stipulates non-empty domain, and quantifier rules that match.
> And so I find it "delicious" that MoeBlee thinks that he can
> instantiate to objects that aren't in the domain of discourse
> (or at least not yet proved to be there).
You're making a first class clown and jerk of yourself.
ASK ANY LOGICIAN whether in plain first order logic (such as in
Enderton, Shoenfield, and probably most of the other most widely
referenced sources) both of the following are correct universal
instantiation:
AxP
____
P
and
AxFx
_____
AxF0
(where, in the second case, '0' is a 1-place function symbol of the
language).
/
Damn! I can't BELIEVE I'm in a discussion with someone who is claiming
that
AxFx to Fx
or
AxFx to F0 (where '0' is a 0-place function symbol of the language)
are not correct universal instantiation.
PLEASE, Mr. Transfer Principle, just look at a damn book on logic! Or
ASK ANY LOGICIAN.
MoeBlee
MoeBlee
> On Jul 9, 3:07 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 2:01 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...@lausd.net> wrote:
> > > tommy1729 _didn't_ state his axioms symbolically
> > > (except for "Ax x=[x]" of course)
> > No, he stated them by NAMING them as the particular set theoretic (or
> > "ZFC", or whatever his exact wording) that he was adopting. So, if he
> > meant them to be other than the ordinary Z axioms, he would need to
> > SAY SO.
>
> Let's look at the recent post of cartman18, who appears to
> be an expert on mereology. I repeat cartman18's post for
> emphasis here:
>
> > 2 Ay(y in [x] <-> y=x) ... axiom
> > 4 Ex Ay y not-in x ... axiom
>
> cartman18:
> "I dont think that can be true in a flat mereology and i doubt if it
> was said or intended."
>
> And so despite MoeBlee insisting that line 2 was either
> said or intended by tommy1729, we see that cartman18,
> the mereology expert, says it's doubtful.
I can't believe you're STILL trying to spin and rationalize this!
I don't claim that (2) is a MEREOLOGICAL axiom. I don't claim that IF
tommy REVISES what he says to some other certain mereological axiom
then a consistent system might be had.
Rather, just look at what tommy SAID. I said THEN even that I am
merely basing on what he said and that if he means differently then he
is welcome to specify exactly what different thing it is he means. But
he has not done that (to my knowledge). Just mumbling some assent to
someone something about "mereology" is not a correction of a
definition or axiom.
> Line 2 was
> definitely never _said_ by tommy1729, and cartman18
> knows that someone working in mereology wouldn't
> _intended_ to say it either.
Other than mumbling something about "mereology" tommy didn't specify
any single particular mereological axiom or definition when he gave
his axioms or definitions to which I responded, not (to my knowledge)
has he given a specific correction to any of his axioms or definitions
since.
Why can't you get over the fact that YOUR own notion of how a
consistent theory might be formed is not in fact what tommy himself
posted?
MoeBlee
MoeBlee
You don't need scare quotes around 'lies' there. They are lies. And
your followups have even more lies in them.
MoeBlee
MoeBlee
Just for the record, I'm replying to whatever groups are listed
already from the post of the other poster(s). If anyone wishes to cut
his replies from certain groups, then my own replies will follow
suit.
MoeBlee
MoeBlee
> On Jul 9, 3:07 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 2 Ay(y in [x] <-> y=x) ... axiom
> > 4 Ex Ay y not-in x ... axiom
>
> cartman18:
> "I dont think that can be true in a flat mereology and i doubt if it
> was said or intended."
See my reply directly to cartman18.
> And so despite MoeBlee insisting that line 2 was either
> said or intended by tommy1729, we see that cartman18,
> the mereology expert, says it's doubtful. Line 2 was
> definitely never _said_ by tommy1729, and cartman18
> knows that someone working in mereology wouldn't
> _intended_ to say it either.
tommy said he adopts the empty set axiom. The empty set axiom is:
ExAy ~yex.
If tommy meant otherwise, he would need to say so. All of this
rationalization about mereology is quite aside the point.
> "For instance if x is a set itself , that contains y and 'in' is
> considered to intend the union of the meanings : element of / subset
> of / element of subsets of / subsets of subsets of /
> Then "2" does not follow."
Even IF some indication were later given that 'in' and 'subset of' are
fuzed in meaning, then tommy would have to explain that, re-formulate,
and replace his definition of '[ ]'. One can speculate how to
RECONSTITUTE tommy's statements to come up with something else, that
is not at issue. What is at issue is that what tommy posted, just as
he posted it, is inconsistent.
> This is the key point here. Since the symbol "in" (or
> "e", or "c", or whatever the primitive is) is intended
> to mean _both_ element _and_ subset, we see that:
Such a stipulation is not in tommy's formulation. And even if he did
later say something to such an effect, he never gave an actual axiom
to replace his saying he adopts "the empty set axiom". Nor is there
anything in his formluation to indicate how 'in' and 'subset of' are
to synonymous.
> > 2 Ay(y in [x] <-> y=x) ... axiom
>
> isn't even possible because if y is a _subset_ of x,
> y is a priori in x even though y isn't itself x.
No such post-stipulation appears in tommy's axioms.
> In
> flat mereology, therefore, there usually is _no_ set
> such that y is in the set iff y=x.
(1) tommy gave no flat mereology. He posted what he calls a "set
theory" and mentioned some famous set theory axioms as among his
axioms. Moreover, he said himself what is tantamount to "y in [x] iff
y=x".
(2) By the way, aside from tommy, where is this axiomatization of flat
mereology found from which you are inferring various things?
> And so, I repeat
> cartman18's line once again for emphasis:
>
> "Then "2" does not follow.
> And that does not violate the principle " elementhood = subset " that
> tommy/galathaea ( who ? ) came up with."
>
> Line 2 of MoeBlee's proof doesn't follow from tommy1729's
> explicitly expressed desiderata that the notions of
> elementhood and subsethood be a single concept.
IF tommy ever gave such an explicit desiderata, then he contradicted
himself in yet another sense. Jesse asked for the definition, and
tommy gave it. If that is not what tommy meant, then he needs to
withdraw his definition and replace it with something else. And his
part in his post-definition exchanges with Jesse about the matter
quickly descended into typical tommy-like incoherence.
> Therefore,
> MoeBlee, while having proved that lines 1,2,4 are
> together inconsistent, hasn't proved that the theory TST
> is in fact inconsistent.
TST, as it was STATED by tommy, is inconsistent, as I showed. That Mr.
Transfer Principle can suggest a way to reconstitute the theory to
something consistent is not disputed.
By the way perhaps Mr. Transfer Principle would be so kind as to
actually post here such a reconstituted theory (my apologies if I
overlooked it in another thread).
> > You are exerting too much verbiage trying to rationalize this.
>
> Maybe I am. If galathaea can't convince MoeBlee that he
> doesn't have a proof that TST is inconsistent, why would
> I have any better chance at convincing him?
It's not a matter of convincing me. It's a matter of recognizing for
yourself that how you might reconstitute tommy's theory is a different
matter from what the theory is at it was posted.
> But let's see
> whether the words of cartman18 can convince MoeBlee that
> he doesn't have an inconsistency proof.
So far, he's been pretty off base.
MoeBlee
Transfer Principle
> On Jul 9, 8:08 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...@lausd.net> wrote:
> > MoeBlee, while having proved that lines 1,2,4 are
> > together inconsistent, hasn't proved that the theory TST
> > is in fact inconsistent.
> TST, as it was STATED by tommy, is inconsistent, as I showed. That Mr.
> Transfer Principle can suggest a way to reconstitute the theory to
> something consistent is not disputed.
> By the way perhaps Mr. Transfer Principle would be so kind as to
> actually post here such a reconstituted theory (my apologies if I
> overlooked it in another thread).
Well, I'm not sure whether MoeBlee would count this as a
"reconstituted" theory, but I did translate tommy1729's
axioms 1)-7) (or at least as many as I could) from
English to object language.
What I didn't incorporate into that theory was the
three-valued logic mentioned in cartman18's posts, as
well as from tommy1729's old post in September. Back in
September, tommy1729 suggested that if P is a 1-place
predicate symbol denoting "is positive", then we might
want to have:
"P1" is true.
"P(-1)" is false.
"P0" has the third truth value.
And presumably, if x is not a real number, then "Px"
would also have the third truth value. One thing that
is interesting about this is that we can define the
1-place predicate "is negative" as:
Nx <->def ~Px.
Unfortunately I don't know exactly how 3-valued logic
is supposed to work. Therefore, I don't know how to
incorporate it into the axioms I mentioned earlier.
One problem with trying to incorporate tommy1729's
desiderata into a rigorous theory is that there are
so many of them that differ from ZFC. We know that two
of his desiderata are:
1) There is a largest set U (with card(U)=aleph_aleph_0).
2) The theory is mereological in nature.
So sometimes I want to consider theories which satisfy
_some_ of his desiderata but not others -- and once I
found a theory in which the first desideratum is
satisfied, progressively add more desiderata until all
of them are satisfied.
So at first I tried to find a theory in which 1) is
satisfied, and so searched for theories such as
Z+proper classes in which, being a class theory, it
would prove the existence of the proper class of all
sets (often called U or V). But it was criticized for
not satisfying 2), so that the theory has nothing to do
with tommy1729's TST.
Thus, no one is going to let me satisfy the desiderata
one at a time, but all at once. In the end, it turns
out that this might be better, anyway. It might be
more elegant to have a theory which is mereological,
and the mereology _itself_ provides for a largest
possible set U. All we need is this axiom, which
Stanford calls Top:
ExAy ycx
And voila! We have a largest possible set, and we may
call this set U. This set U has a cardinality, which
_could_ be aleph_aleph_0. But we can build from here
and search for axioms which will guarantee that the set
U whose existence is derived from the Top Axiom will
have cardinality aleph_aleph_0.
But now tommy1729 gives us what appears to be a third
desideratum, which I will accept as such until I hear
someone say otherwise:
3) The theory is based on three-valued logic.
Since I'm not familiar with three-valued logic, I'd
like it if I could delay considering 3) until I become
more familiar with 3-valued logic, and try to work on
theories that satisfy 1) and 2). But then, just as
back when I ignored 2) in favor of 1), someone might
say that if I don't incorporate 3) into the theory
right away, it will have nothing to do with TST.
But notice that, even right now, there's a problem
with the axioms that I have stated so far -- and this
problem has nothing to do with inconsistency. Upon
further inspection of the axioms, I just realized that
none of the axioms that I stated in this, or any other
TST thread, ever prove that more than one object
actually exists! On the surface, it might appear that
the axioms Top and Bottom prove the existence of
objects U and [] -- but it's actually possible that
U=[], and that no set other than [] exists!
Other axioms that appear to prove that more than one
set exists actually don't. The axiom of pairing, which
in ZFC proves the existence of the separate sets 0 and
{0}, can't prove the existence of two sets in the
mereology theory, since [[]]=[]. We have to already
have distinct sets a and b in order to form the set
[a,b] (which still might equal a or b). In older
threads, I tried to include ordered pairs, another of
tommy1729's expressed desiderata, and state that:
AaAbAcAd ((a,b)=(c,d) <-> a=c & b=d)
but in order to prove that (a,b)=(c,d) are distinct,
we have to already have distinct sets a,c (or b,d) --
otherwise, it's possible that every ordered pair is
equal to []!
This problem occurred back in the Ullrich thread,
where Ullrich conceded that in a class theory, one
can prove from Class Comprehension alone that 0 exists
and is a class, but one needs other axioms to prove
that 0 is a set. Otherwise, it might be possible that
0 is a proper class -- and would equal the proper
class V of all sets, since no sets exist! We need to
provide for the existence of one set in order to
guarantee that ~V=0 and hence 0 is a set.
This problem also occured in some of zuhair's old
theories, where it was possible that only one set
exists (often either 0 or a Quine atom depending on
the particular theory). Notice that a theory which
can't prove the existence of more than one set isn't
necessarily inconsistent, since it has a model -- of
course, the universe (carrier set) of this model would
have a cardinality of one. (Also, note that in each of
these examples, as soon as we have two sets, then one
can prove that infinitely many sets exist.)
The solution in some of zuhair's theories was to add
some sort of ad hoc axiom, such as:
ExEy ~x=y
in order to guarantee that at least two objects exist,
and we can do something similar in mereology:
ExEy ~xcy
But it would be much more elegant if we could prove
that at least two objects exist by using desideratum
3) -- 3-valued logic -- that I've been avoiding using
until now! For we have:
"UcU" is true (since ycU for every object y), but
"[]c[]" has the third truth value (via cartman18).
And so if phi is the formula "xcx", then phi(U) and
phi([]) would have different truth values, so that
U and [] must necessarily be distinct -- and so at
least two objects exist. And as soon as we have two
objects, then we can make infinitely many more objects
using ordered pairs.
And so I see that it's generally a good idea to
consider all of the desiderata at once. By looking at
only 1) and ignoring 2), I couldn't see that U should
exist, and by considering 2) and ignoring 3), I
couldn't see that U isn't equal to [].
And so I'll try to come up with a reconstituted theory
as soon as I learn a little more about three-valued
logic (since I don't even know how to _write_ axioms
in 3-valued logic).
Aatu Koskensilta
> Also, some systems require instantiations not be to the same variable
> but rather to 'temporary constants' or things like that.
The more-or-less standard term is 'parameter'.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
MoeBlee
> MoeBlee <jazzm...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > Also, some systems require instantiations not be to the same variable
> > but rather to 'temporary constants' or things like that.
>
> The more-or-less standard term is 'parameter'.
Okay, though 'parameter' also takes on different senses by different
authors. In any case, if I recall, I have seen 'temporary constant'
used for the situation I mentioned.
MoeBlee
Herbert Newman
Another -imho preferable- term: "arbitrary names".
Herb