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
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 i
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
unders
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
> 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.
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
> > >>
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 wo
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
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 use
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.)
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 intui
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 misst
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
>
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:
> >
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 non
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 us
--- 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?
> >
> Eu
--- 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 inconsis
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.
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
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 de
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 field
> 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
l
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
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 reaso
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
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 c
27 matches
Mail list logo
