On 10 February 2014 01:49, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > So with "->" and "f" we can define all connectors. > > Is there a connector (like "&", "V", "->", ...) such that all connectors > can be defined from it? >
You just said that ... oh do you mean without using 'f' ? > > This is a facultative exercise. Only for possible raining sundays. We will > not use this in the sequel. > > OK. I don't know. It doesn't seem intuitively obvious, but if you can use ~ then we have already used & and (I think) V that way... I think. > Well, even though I did it, the result still looks rather strange to me! > > Cantor said "I see but don't believe it". it is normal. von Neuman said > "nobody understand math", mathematicians get only used to it. > I seem to be in good company. They laughed at Archimedes. The laughed at Einstein. The laughed at Bozo the clown... > >> Understanding is good. >> Understanding and memorizing, even with the help of a well presented >> diary, is better, as it saves the future possible works. >> > > I agree. I'm sure I started one, too, but I can't find it now. (So > sometimes I have to treat you as my diary...) > > Well, I hope you will not lost me too! > Likewise. > > Memorizing is good, but only if you manage to keep the memory accessible. > 'course. > Yes.... > > Some would disagree... > > I guess that they met the bad math teacher who kicks the student before > math kick them, making it impossible for them to understand the real > kicking back of math, and develop the appreciation. > > That's bad for the slow student, which sometimes are slow because they are > more demanding in understanding, and it is good for the quick student, who > can learn to solve problem by no more than pattern matching, without any > understanding. Consumerist societies favour quick students, which aggravate > the situation for slow students, and long term project. > > As a math teacher, I try to help the two kinds of student, but it is not > always easy, and to be honest, I favor the slow one. > > For me, a valid reasoning with a false answer is better than a false > reasoning with a correct answer. I know that in real life, the contrary is > true. > Wise words. > > Some others seems interested in the thread too, but might be less > courageous for participating, as you need some courage to do a sort of > persistent "exam" online. I can understand. But I know that if I explain > everything ex-cathedra, everyone will be lost somewhere, and nobody will > know where. I do hope some others will participate to make things lighter > on your shoulders. > > It takes a bit of courage for me, certainly. Especially since it's all stuff that seems to melt away, even though I understood it at the time. But then I *can* switch back and understand it again. But I find popularised physics and biology easier to follow than popularised logic, even though we have most of Raymond Smullyan's books. Thank god he is still alive! I had to go and check - last time I checked on someone, he'd died. It was John Galbraith Graham, my hero of the crossword world. I never knew him .... yet I did in a way, just like Mr Smullyan and Ursula le Guin. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
