Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
If you can't show that ∃x is wff by the rules for constructing wff, these rules simply do not cover the Platonic realm, and they have to be corrected in order to also cover it (which is not the current state of these rules).
Click to expand...

So there, you admit that there is a hiatus between your work and the wff rules.

And that makes that statement almost correct; if the rules for wff do not cover *your* work, then you are not allowed to call it a wff.

You can call it a Shadmi-augmented wff or a Shpoogle or anything you like, but not a wff. Because, as you now have admitted, according to the established rules, your work is *not* a wff.

And you need to explicitly state what the rules are for *your* version of a wff.
 
doronshadmi said:
The concept of set (notated by x) within ZFC is platonic ("x existence is always true").
Click to expand...

This has been your claim for a while, yet it has no basis in ZFC. It is something you simply made up.

So, without ∃x as wff within ZFC, ZFC can't be used as a mathematical theory.
Click to expand...

You made something up that wasn't true; you exercised a series of semantic equivocations trying to establish your claim, all to no avail; and then when your claim is reduced to its simplest form and impacts mathematical reality, you blame mathematics for not supporting your bizarre concepts.

Circular reason much?

If you can't show that ∃x is wff...
Click to expand...

Not my claim, so that's not my burden. It was, however, a necessary component to support your claim.

It fails; therefore your claim fails.
 
jsfisher said:
This has been your claim for a while, yet it has no basis in ZFC. It is something you simply made up
Click to expand...
No one can "made up" platonic things, and within ZFC set is a platonic thing (it is discovered, and this discovered element (notated by x) is logically tautological existence ("x existence is always true").

If you disagree with me, then please logically demonstrate exactly how "set's existence is not always true" within ZFC.

Only if you logically show it, you can claim that ∃x ("set's existence is always true" within ZFC (for example: this is not the case about members of a given set, because within ZFC there exists at least one set with no members at all)) is not wff within ZFC.

So once again, the stage is yours, please logically show it.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No one can "made up" platonic things
Click to expand...

The word you need there is 'make'. The part you made up was that ZFC includes these made up concepts of yours--includes in the sense of being right there in its foundational axioms.

Your claim, like just about all of your claims that went before it, was an abysmal failure.

Semantic equivocation and burden shifts do not strengthen your position in any way. Nor does the continual claim mutation and goal post relocation.
 
jsfisher said:
when your claim is reduced to its simplest form and impacts mathematical reality, you blame mathematics for not supporting your bizarre concepts.

Circular reason much?
Click to expand...
Let's see.

Take, for example, expression (3) of "the smallest set containing the set of atomic formulas" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-formed_formula#Predicate_logic):

3. ∃x Φ is a formula, when x is a variable and Φ is a formula.

You can't say anything about x, unless x exists by the expression "there exists x" (notated as ∃x, where ∃ is the existential quantification, which is used in (3) as a unitary connective ("there exists x" or ∃x).

In other words, ∃x is wff within (3), otherwise (3) is not wff.

EDIT:

The only way to show that I am wrong is to logically demonstrate that "x Φ is a formula, when x is a variable and Φ is a formula" is the same as "∃x Φ is a formula, when x is a variable and Φ is a formula" (and in this case you have to use Quantifier elimination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantifier_elimination) in order to show that x is quantifier-free within (3)).
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Your claim, like just about all of your claims that went before it, was an abysmal failure.
Click to expand...

You are still missing it.

So once again, the stage is yours, please logically show that my "claim, like just about all of" my "claims that went before it, was an abysmal failure", by explicitly logically demonstrate it within ZFC.
 
doronshadmi said:
Let's see.

Take, for example, expression (3) of "the smallest set containing the set of atomic formulas" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-formed_formula#Predicate_logic):

3. ∃x Φ is a formula, when x is a variable and Φ is a formula.

You can't say anything about x, unless x exists by the expression "there exists x" (notated as ∃x, where ∃ is the existential quantification, which is used in (3) as a unitary connective ("there exists x" or ∃x).

In other words, ∃x is wff within (3), otherwise (3) is not wff.

EDIT:

The only way to show that I am wrong is to logically demonstrate that "x Φ is a formula, when x is a variable and Φ is a formula" is the same as "∃x Φ is a formula, when x is a variable and Φ is a formula" (and in this case you have to use Quantifier elimination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantifier_elimination) in order to show that x is quantifier-free within (3)).
Click to expand...

At best this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum at most probable a strawman.

Doron, with this line of argumentation (i.e. the 'say it isn't so' style) you are disqualifying yourself as to any form of academic, let alone scientific validation.

Proper science or academia is done from the ground up, not by asking others to prove you wrong.

(Asking someone to prove them wrong is Hillbilly science)
 
doronshadmi said:
Let's see...
Click to expand...

Yes, let's see. I'm looking...but I'm not seeing anywhere you demonstrate ∃x to be a well-formed formula within the rules for constructing well-formed formulae.

You do exercise semantic equivocation, but that's not worth much in the realm of mathematical proof.
 
doronshadmi said:
You are still missing it.

So once again, the stage is yours, please logically show that my "claim, like just about all of" my "claims that went before it, was an abysmal failure".
Click to expand...

Your claim is an abysmal failure because you are unable to support it. No attempt to shift the burden to me will change that.
 
jsfisher said:
Yes, let's see. I'm looking...but I'm not seeing anywhere you demonstrate ∃x to be a well-formed formula within the rules for constructing well-formed formulae.

You do exercise semantic equivocation, but that's not worth much in the realm of mathematical proof.
Click to expand...
jsfisher, such a reply is no more than hand waving.

So once again, please support your claims logically.

As long as you are not doing it, this is no more than a waste of time for both of us.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Your claim is an abysmal failure because you are unable to support it. No attempt to shift the burden to me will change that.
Click to expand...
Actually, your claim about my claim is an abysmal failure exactly because you are unable to logically support it.

So, this time, instead of hand waving, please support your claim about my claim logically, and please do it in details.

Any other way is no more that a waste of time for both of us.
 
doronshadmi said:
Asking someone to prove me wrong is a legitimate scientific request, if the terms how to do that are explicitly given, and in this case all is needed is to logically show that x is quantifier-free within (3) (the details are given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10055318&postcount=4025).
Click to expand...

And there you have it; cargo-cult science.

Just by bolding a word does not make it true.

And it is *not* a legitimate scientific request. Doron is confused with verification *after* a hypothesis has been laid out.

All that Doron needs to do is logically go from A to B such that under A we find the unmodified rules for a well-formed-formula and under B the mess that Doron claims.

As long as there is no logical route from A to B (with unmodified definitions) all requests for reductio ad absurdum are false and need not be considered.

The above is a logical discourse on why the ball is still in Doron's court and he still needs to prove something before he can ask something.

As it is, he is just handwaving and wasting everyone's time. But as it happens, he is a favorite waste of time anyway :)
 
The question that is before you doronshadmi is for you to provide proof of what you say. Your claim, your proof. jsfisher has the same right to say you are wrong when you say whatever you are trying to say. You do not get the right to use established symbols, terms, or whatever else you text bastardize.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
The question that is before you doronshadmi is for you to provide proof of what you say. Your claim, your proof. jsfisher has the same right to say you are wrong when you say whatever you are trying to say. You do not get the right to use established symbols, terms, or whatever else you text bastardize.
Click to expand...

The best part is, it is in contradiction with what he claimed earlier. See my signature... his new insistence that 'there exists' totally waylays all his previous claims.
 
jsfisher said:
Your claim; your obligation to support it.
Click to expand...
My claim is logically supported in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10055318&postcount=4025.

As long as you do not logically show that x is quantifier-free within (3), all you have is hand-waving.

So, for the last time, please logically show that x is quantifier-free within (3).

If this time you still can't show it, it will be proven that your rejection of my claim is no more than hand-waving.

And for the record, nothing "logically go from A to B", it is all done in A's yard.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
You do not get the right to use established symbols, terms
Click to expand...
You are not in any position to determine my rights.

If you disagree with my argument as given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10055318&postcount=4025 , you simply have to logically show that x is quantifier-free within (3).

So please logically support your disagreement, where "established symbols, terms" etc. is no more than hand-waving, unless it is logically supported.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
My claim is logically supported in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10055318&postcount=4025.

As long as you do not logically show that x is quantifier-free within (3), all you have is hand waving.

So, for the last time, please logically show that x is quantifier-free within (3).

If this time you still can't show it, it will be proven that your rejection of my claim is no more than hand-waving.

And for the record nothing "logically go from A to B", it is all done in A's yard.
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi

What Doron is saying here is:

I will not provide a logical discourse, I just *tell* you what it is.

Well, that coupled with the paragraphs above should allow me, without attacking the arguer as it is logically proven by the quoted text, to call Doron a hypocrite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom