Recently while debating the official 9/11 story, a person said:

"So if the terrorists didn't do [9/11] as your evidence and laws
of physics say, then what happened to all the people
on the planes? Did they just vanish in thin air?"

As if the lack of an alternative explanation (which
I had not yet stated) implies that the official 9/11 story
is true.

Lacking a story that they felt was emotionally
acceptable i.e. that Muslims perpetrated 9/11,
they were left in a crisis. They wanted to simply
believe the government's fairy story and indeed
had decided what to believe long ago. Or rather
the government & the subservient media did it for them.

Thus they suffered from confirmation bias:
They had made up their minds long ago, and any new
information they simply rejected rather than face
a new emotional crisis. And any new information,
like the occasional 9/11 related story that appears
in the media, served to confirm their original belief.

Hi all

If the following axiom is added to ZF, would the resulting theory be
equivalent to ZFC?

Axiom:

for all x , for all y ((x is dedekindian and y subset of x)

implies y is dedekindian)

in symboles:

(x is dedekindian & y c x) -> y is dedekindian

in words: every subset of a dedekindian set is dedekindian.

Zuhair

[Cross-posted to sci.logic.]

On 24 May, 05:30, Dave juno.com> wrote:

Hello

Think I have solved the S3 riddle

the riddle is in Modal logic S3 is

"
[][](p -> p) v <><>q is a theorem
but
[][](p -> p) nor
<><>q
is a theorem
"

The solution I came to is that the theorem is an Law of the excluded
middle theorem

starting with

A v ~A
taking A to be [][]T

(T being any tautaulogy)

We get
[][]T v ~[][] T

How does logic organize its elements? We note, do we not, the following:

Elements or variables are given two types of "special power": either a
power that brings them together or a power that keeps them apart. There
are no logically expressible elements that have no powers. Elements
then, are transcendental objects, and logic is transcendental because of it.

That is the entire realm of logical objects and powers and it brings us
sets, pairs, domains, etc.

In the physical world objects express their powers through forces, such
as gravitation, electromagnetism, etc. Like logical objects, there are
no physical objects that have no powers. But in logic powers are
enforced and expressed by visual cues (brackets, circles, dots, etc).
These show which elements have the power to stay together, or not.

The physical world and the world of logic are then, alike, in that there
are no expressible objects without powers and an object remains
independent of the activity of its powers - with the exception, of
course, of the energetic transmutation of matter.

This is only a quick question. What formal system is required to
derive the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem and the resulting "paradox". Is ZF
required, or can it be proved in Z?

Hello,
I am reading peasno's axioms. I understand they only include
natural numbers.
What is the first order theory that includes rational numbers.

My questions are as follows -
1) How do I extend peano's axioms to include negative integers.
2) Then how do we extend it for division and the rational numbers.

3) And finally, all of real numbers. I believe ZF can include all of
arithmetic. Is there something weaker than ZF. Something like peano's
axioms.

Thanks

visit www.examrace.com

On 19 mai, 18:37, "METIS" wrote:

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/8505/einsteinmarilynco5.jpg

On voit bien où en sont arrivés les einsteinistes !

Pour appater le gogo et faire contre feu à la lucidité grandissante de
la population (et de certains auteurs honnêtes)
cf
http://monsyte.blogspot.com/2008/05/un-retour-newton-les-erreurs-de.html
... ils en sont arrivés à vouloir utiliser les charmes d'une chanteuse
d'anniversaire vendue à l'impérialisme et qui a cru au charme d'une
justice cruelle et à la sincérité des enfants de l'ami de la mafia.
Cette malheureuse se retrouve victime, de surcroit de cette campagne
publicitaire des einsteinistes en mal de notoriété.