Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> To infer means there is "a process" which permits to infer.. if there
> is none... then you can't simply infer something.
Right. So you can't infer a contradiction.
Brent
>
> 2008/11/9 Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>:
>> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>> 2008/11/9 Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>:
>>>> A. Wolf wrote:
>>>>>> I can if there's no rule of inference. Perhaps that's crux. You are requiring
>>>>>> that a "mathematical structure" be a set of axioms *plus* the usual rules of
>>>>>> inference for "and", "or", "every", "any",...and maybe the axiom of choice too.
>>>>> Rules of inference can be derived from the axioms...it sounds circular
>>>>> but in ZFC all you need are nine axioms and two undefinables (which
>>>>> are set, and the binary relation of membership). You write the axioms
>>>>> using the language of predicate calculus, but that's just a
>>>>> convenience to be able to refer to them.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well not entirely by itself - one still needs the rules of inference to get to
>>>>>> Russell's paradox.
>>>>> Not true! The paradox arises from the axioms alone (and it isn't a
>>>>> true paradox, either, in that it doesn't cause a contradiction among
>>>>> the axioms...it simply reveals that certain sets do not exist). The
>>>>> set of all sets cannot exist because it would contradict the Axiom of
>>>>> Extensionality, which says that each set is determined by its elements
>>>>> (something can't both be in a set and not in the same set, in other
>>>>> words).
>>>> I thought you were citing it as an example of a contradiction - but we digress.
>>>>
>>>> What is your objection to the existence of list-universes? Are they not
>>>> internally consistent "mathematical" structures? Are you claiming that whatever
>>>> the list is, rules of inference can be derived (using what process?) and thence
>>>> they will be found to be inconsistent?
>>>>
>>>> Brent
>>> Well I reverse the question... Do you think you can still be
>>> consistent without being consistent ?
>>>
>>> If there is no rules of inference or in other words, no rules that
>>> ties states... How do you define consistency ?
>> A set of propositions is consistent if it is impossible to infer contradiction.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Nov 08 2008 - 21:31:00 PST