> On 17 May 2019, at 23:18, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 5/17/2019 5:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 16 May 2019, at 01:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5/15/2019 8:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> Mathematical logic distinguish well the name of a thing and the thing >>>> itself. You confuse “0” and 0. >>>> >>>> Also, when you say that something does not exist, you might give us your >>>> metaphysical axioms. Taken literarily, what you say is like saying that >>>> the equation x - 4 = 0 has no solution. >>> That's confusing "Satisfies a predicate." with "exists". Such a definition >>> of "exists" is only relative to a context. Compare, "There exists a >>> physician companion of Sherlock Holmes.” >> In arithmetic, I use the expression “it exists x P(x)” with the meaning the >> standard model of arithmetic satisfies “it exists x P(x)”. Which is the >> logician way to describe the meaning of “it exists x such that x-1=0” in >> high-school. >> >> Since day one, we use the standard model of arithmetic. It is the one >> everyone understand. The no standard model are sophisticated constructs in >> the mind of logician, to prove that PA, and all sound machines, have >> limitation with respect to the standard model, which can be defined online a >> richer theory. > > And I use the standard model of Sherlock Holmes, the one everyone > understands. That doesn't make Watson exist.
Everyone agree on what what is the standard model of ZF, easily definable in Analysis or Set theory. I am not sure what could ever mean: "the standard model of Sherlock Holmes". Give me your first order theory of Sherlock Holmes. If it is Turing Universal, and does not assume infinities, then I will be able to have a standard interpretation of it, but your proposition will just be the invention of a new formalism for “computable”, and as I said, you can use it as your basic theory. I doubt that Conan Doyle will recognise its baby, though. All physics theories use elementary arithmetic. You comparison between Sherlock Holmes and Arithmetic does not make much sense. Or show me some application of “Sherlock Holmes” in particle physics. Sherlock Holmes is, by definition, a fictive person. Even if we discover someone looking very much like him in the “real world”, it would not be “Sherlock Holmes”, just a guy looking like him, because, by definition, shellack Holmes do not exist: it is part of its definition, I would say. Same for the unicorns. Bruno > > Brent > > >> >> The level of mathematical confidence is high up to ZFC, like in analysis and >> physics. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >>> Brent >>> >>> -- >>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/13f30fc5-3fd9-9b09-17c5-f198c540b5a8%40verizon.net. > > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c94fc0cd-1234-9d67-b406-47e3849af756%40verizon.net. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/D219A044-3BAD-428F-9C83-B994C642A2AD%40ulb.ac.be.
