No one in sci.logic is easier to parody than George Greene, perhaps the most emotional logician who ever lived. Look, it's good to have an opinion or two, even a strong opinion or two, but at some point, one should get counseling. Nah, just kidding. Usenet is just Usenet and being a jerk doesn't mean much of anything, right?
Even being a complete and utter asshole is acceptable, nay, de rigeur. Especially when you have truth on your side. Doubly so when you are the only one in the world who has ever had truth on your side. Thus, let us sit back and enjoy George Greene Dissociated .
Warning: When George finally snaps and bad things happen, the Feds will probably confiscate my computer and scan the Apache logs. Anyone who reads George Greene Dissociated rather too often will likely be flagged a "person of interest". Continue at your own risk!
George Greene: Asshole ExtraordinaireJust because the set of all finite naturals does the FINISHED COMPLETED SET
OF ALL finite naturals have?? The answer IS NOT absurd or mystical,
dumbass: IT IS PROVABLE. It is A THEOREM. ALL you would then need a
grammar for grammar-specifications; the circularity is less embarrassing if
you start another thread about this instead of the reals: the set of all
finite naturals exists, xor 3b) a set containing all the naturals exists.
The only way you could be one way of interpreting it. THat's not the case.
ANY old axiomatization recognizable as being ABOUT collections WOULD YIELD
THE SAME results. ALL we need to figure out. We understand all this stuff
(there's other messages besides this one). FF himself quoted the one where
you copped to "chemo-brain". Funny how that malady never seems to get in
the way things are IN here, then you could see {0,1,2,3,4,5,6} is a set
that are contradictory does not mean you are not correctly parsing what I'm
saying does not change the value of b". We could also do that with
"grammars" but you still have not responded or engaged.
Regarding using first-order languages for first-order logic,
Phil replied,
THIS is NOT something we are going to WASTE time arguing about! It IS
just a clerical convention. It is not relevant. This is SUPPOSED to be
in some set (AN ORDINAL, A SET REPRESENTING A SIZE of some family must
continue to exist "outside", it WILL STILL be the case in the other thread
about this instead of adding more hydra-heads to the current one?
Well, obviously, you can, since THERE ARE infinitely many axioms, most of
which Phil doesn't yet know that (A->P)->(A^B->P) is a legitimate NOUN.
Things that are alleged to be infinite. ALL the things IN the collection.
Notationally, small letters would denote 1st-order predicates are allowed
but we are going to tell me you posted yours BEFORE you can have 2nd-order
quantifiers, quantifying over 1st-order predicates.
In bare ascii we don't have to have whatever phlaws Phool may choose.
THAT axiom would the axiom of succession" and NONE of them is NAMED "the
axiom of succession" and, since they don't exist, these axioms (along with
our proofs that allegedly follow from them) can then be made to have to
figure this out IN YOUR OWN mind and on your own axiom. COngratulations; at
least 2 ways, EVERY finite set of ALL natural numbers, by definition,
doesn't skip any. {1,6,11,16,21,26,31} is a set so finite that it contains
ONLY ONE element, that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with me, that is the
actual proofs. But here's a sample":
YES, Phool, that not only WORKS, IT IS THE ONLY assumption I made NO
*assumptions* about the value of b". But now, line 0 "restricts or
limits" (Phil's terms), or affects, line 1. In our terms, line 1 now
depends on line 0. Therefore, if line 0 (B) should NOW change to: b=2; we
could define a first-order language!
By definition, omega is the limit may continue to exist "outside", it WILL
STILL be the square OF, does not exist, so (Even though it IS) you cannot
SAY (in THAT context) that it applies to.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING as "current set theory"! INSTEAD of doing that, you
have to do to see that delusion 2. is not any legitimate kind of set, the
MEMBERS of N. THERE IS NO SUCH THING as TIME in MOST versions of math
around here! IT JUST PLAIN FINITE.
This means that at EVERY given moment in time DURING which you are going to
WASTE time arguing about! It IS just a little creative visualization.
We could pretend that {|||} actually means the set theory that everybody is
most familiar with. But YOU will never see a proof.
|
For an explanation of how this page works, see this. For more dissociated entertainment, visit James S. Harris dissociated. He's a better writer than me.