a famous one,
let S be the set of all elements that do not belong to S
On Jan 8, 2008 3:10 AM, Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just recently, I said:
On the other hand, well-formed statements can talk about some of their
properties in certain systems. If worse comes to worse, you can
On 1/7/08, Floor Terra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=Offtopic==
Can you recommend a book about Godel and his works?
I have read A World Without Time from Palle Yourgrau and would
like to learn more about his work.
I'm afraid I cannot; I'm a rank amateur who couldn't possibly
understand
On 01/07/08 02:23, Francisco J. Tsao Santin wrote:
And I don't understand how important people that I admire can fall down
in so childish discussion.
Maybe because those people are not so thoughtful and thus important as
you thought?
I'm ashamed as free software supporter and I
feel
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:21:03AM -0600, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
On 1/7/08, Floor Terra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=Offtopic==
Can you recommend a book about Godel and his works?
I have read A World Without Time from Palle Yourgrau and would
like to learn more about his work.
I'm
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500
Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(There are also multiple useful,
mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.)
Provably so?
Dhu
Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500
Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(There are also multiple useful,
mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.)
Provably so?
Euclidean and ono-Euclidian geometries should suffice.
--- Duncan Patton a Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500
Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(There are also multiple useful,
mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.)
Provably so?
+1
I'd love an example of Math being inconsistent. Quite
--- Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500
Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(There are also multiple useful,
mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.)
Provably so?
Euclidean and ono-Euclidian
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 00:26:35 -0800 (PST)
Reid Nichol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500
Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(There are also multiple useful,
I said:
(There are also multiple useful,
mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.)
Duncan Patton a Campbell said:
Provably so?
Reid Nichol said:
I'd love an example of Math being inconsistent. Quite frankly, I'd be
surprised if this is true.
Tony Abernethy's example of
oops: NON-Euclidean
(still more accurate than a lot of ... on this thread)
Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 00:26:35 -0800 (PST)
Reid Nichol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Tony Abernethy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan
Reid Nichol wrote:
--- Duncan Patton a Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500
Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(There are also multiple useful,
mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.)
Provably so?
+1
I'd love an example of
You have done a pretty good job of summarizing my position.
The sex education analogy is quite clear and valid.
(I'm in favor of teaching people how to use contraception,
because I'm in favor of encouraging sex.)
Thank you for helping to explain.
In this discussion I have stuck to correcting
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 01:37:46AM -0600, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500
Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(There are also multiple useful,
mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.)
Provably so?
Yes. For example, in intuitionistic
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:02:19 -0800, Reid Nichol wrote:
--- Duncan Patton a Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500
Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(There are also multiple useful,
mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.)
Provably so?
On 1/7/08, Jona Joachim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:02:19 -0800, Reid Nichol wrote:
--- Duncan Patton a Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500
Eliah Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(There are also multiple useful,
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 12:02:08 -0500
William Boshuck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. For example, in intuitionistic analysis every real-valued
?intuitionistic?
Dhu
Just recently, I said:
On the other hand, well-formed statements can talk about some of their
properties in certain systems. If worse comes to worse, you can simply
use a different system to evaluate the statement. This really does
make sense and there is information conveyed--a parallel would
On Jan 7, 2008 11:44 PM, Gregg Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/7/08, Jona Joachim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:02:19 -0800, Reid Nichol wrote:
--- Duncan Patton a Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500
Eliah Kagan [EMAIL
The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false.
Oh and by the way this sentence is also false.
The Liar's Paradox would not be a good example of useful mathematical
systems being mutually inconsistent, or of formal language being
imprecise or expressing non-absolute ideas.
A
Hello,
I came to the misc@ list from Journal links just to see what is the real
discussion about RMS and OpenBSD.
From the start I have to tell the list that I'm sad. I have read sad things and
now I think I should not read those things. In fact someone should put a waring
label like Read with
On 1/6/08 11:37 PM, Mihai Popescu B. S. wrote:
If RMS came up with some statements, then the proper answer should have been
Dear Mr. RMS, you are not so well informed about OpenBSD project please
check this links I got that as a good answer for my questions. Not to
mention the RTFM
Mihai Popescu B. S. wrote:
Both sides started to used stupid and out of context words. Nothing was
achieved,
just insults and no productive discussion.
Stallman continually keeps repairing and admitting to a small amount of
his errors... and this entire thread has made progress. The only
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 12:37:26PM -0800, Mihai Popescu B. S. wrote:
I came to the misc@ list from Journal links just to see what is the real
discussion about RMS and OpenBSD.
From the start I have to tell the list that I'm sad. I have read sad things
and
now I think I should not read those
Later, I found out that our human language is too weak to define laws in
absolute and clear terms.
Not true. Language can define the laws of of physics or of mathematics
in extremely clear, precise, and absolute terms.
Bringing the discussion back to operating systems, I think that the our
On Jan 6, 2008 9:38 PM, Matthew Szudzik wrote:
Not true. Language can define the laws of of physics or of mathematics
in extremely clear, precise, and absolute terms.
Many if not most physicists and mathematicians would dispute that
statement. There are numerous important debates in the fields
Matthew Szudzik wrote:
Not true. Language can define the laws of of physics or of
mathematics
in extremely clear, precise, and absolute terms.
First the obvious: If it can, then why doesn't it?
Second, seems like mathematics has axioms not laws.
There are a few things you can define
27 matches
Mail list logo
