sci.logic
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
sci.logic only
 
Advanced search
December 2006
motuwethfrsasuw
    123 48
45678910 49
11121314151617 50
18192021222324 51
25262728293031 52
2006
 Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr 
 May   Jun   Jul   Aug 
 Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec 
2008 2007 2006  
total
sci.logic Profile…
RELATED GROUPS

POPULAR GROUPS

more...
 Up
  AXIOM.         


Author: John Jones
Date: Dec 10, 2006 14:54

1) The axioms that mathematics chooses for its discourse will always be
employed for contingent reasons, these arising from a mathematicians
need, and are never employed by virtue of necessity.

2) The behaviours of the symbols that mathematics employs in its
operations are not dependant on any mathematical axiomatic system.

3) The operations of deduction, induction, logical inference and
contradiction are the names given to rules that describe familiar
behaviours of symbols and not dependant on any mathematical axiomatic
system.
2 Comments
  What is the model for this information         


Author: Konrad Viltersten
Date: Dec 10, 2006 08:56

Suppose there is a binary relation R and an unary function f.
We're asked to define a model for the above and we're
unclear what a model exactly is.

A model as we'd suggest would be as follows.
< S, R, f >, where S is an arbitrary set.

The problem is only that the above is described as a
structure, not a model. A model, however, is a set of logical
statements only. So, our actual problem is "how do we
mention R and f when defining a model?".

--
Vänligen
Konrad
---------------------------------------------------

Sleep - thing used by ineffective people
as a substitute for coffee

Ambition - a poor excuse for not having
enough sence to be lazy
---------------------------------------------------
2 Comments
  Re: CONFUSIONS IN EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT         


Author: Phineas T Puddleduck
Date: Dec 10, 2006 08:41

In article <1165760964.254091.247840@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"Pentcho Valev" yahoo.com> wrote:
> The top of the tower emits light with speed c ; when the light reaches
> the ground its speed is c'=c(1+V/c^2) as Einstein showed in 1911 (V is
> the gravitational potential).
>
> Generally relativists do not know how to react. Most of them do not
> comment at all. Some panic and say Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong.
> Others do not see the danger and praise the equation.
>
>>From time to time young relativists want to inform the world that the
> speed remains constant (c'=c) but wiser brothers stop them: after all,
> wiser brothers teach, Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is
> consistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 and the
> latter is confirmed experimentally. Young relativists promise never to
> do so again.

You are silly. Stop it.

--

Just \int_0^\infty du it!
Show full article (0.99Kb)
3 Comments
  Re: CONFUSIONS IN EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT         


Author: Norman Bates
Date: Dec 10, 2006 08:35

"Pentcho Valev" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165760964.254091.247840@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> The top of the tower emits light with speed c ; when the light reaches
> the ground its speed is c'=c(1+V/c^2) as Einstein showed in 1911 (V is
> the gravitational potential).
>
> Generally relativists do not know how to react. Most of them do not
> comment at all. Some panic and say Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong.
> Others do not see the danger and praise the equation.
>
>>From time to time young relativists want to inform the world that the
> speed remains constant (c'=c) but wiser brothers stop them: after all,
> wiser brothers teach, Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is
> consistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 and the
> latter is confirmed experimentally. Young relativists promise never to
> do so again.
>
> Pentcho Valev
>
Well at least we got a working threory and E=Mc^2 out of the deal. If you ...
Show full article (1.04Kb)
2 Comments
  Re: Arguments for no God?         


Author: Chris Degnen
Date: Dec 10, 2006 08:09

George Dance wrote:
> Chris Degnen wrote:
>> Furthermore, point 4: "Every physical that we have ever
>> observed was created by other physical existents." Again,
>> if we excuse the preoccupation with physicality, nothing
>> does not need to be created to exist.
>
> Look, what does the sentence "Nothing exists" mean? It means
> that there is not one thing that does exist - which is the
> denial, not the assertion, that somethng exists. That's how
> the indefinite pronoun 'nothing' is used; you're simply
> misusing the language.

How about 'the empty set'? Would you say that exists, even
conceptually?
1 Comment