Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
herbzet wrote:
They exist as fried broccoli.

I have a follower! I'm like Ayn Rand!

But prettier.

--
hz

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:48:22 GMT, "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote:
[something virtually unintelligible, including this quote:]

hanson wrote:

"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote
"Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:6t7Qj.55830$_h7.11858@newsfe05.ams2...
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:fjb114p1ltma44djo23nbu6k4rlt3s1jb7@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:40:42 +0100, "Androcles"
| <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| ... who knows, because he prefers to tell people to complain to
| Microsoft about the misbehaviour of Outlook Express, instead of
| working around it himself.

"Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
Some LYING shit calling itself "Angus Rodgers" .
has claimed I wrote that What a FUCKHEAD.
*plonk*

"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote
Calling someone a "lying fuckhead" when evidence of the truth of
what they wrote is in the public domain (and the very recent past!)
is idiocy of a very high quality indeed.
In case there is any genuine doubt (which I very much doubt!), I
was referring to this article, in this very thread:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.math/msg/ba9c1a808dcfd8ee
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Aatu Koskensilta" <aatu.koskensi...@xortec.fi> wrote in message

news:ShFPj.341272$NR3.76273@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
| On 2008-04-23, in sci.logic, Androcles wrote nothing that slrn would
| quote.
|
| You are using the sig-delimiter "-- " incorrectly. It should go after
| the body of your message, not before it. Many newsreaders will
| automatically snip out everything after "-- ", as is good and proper.

Report it to Microsoft as a bug.

[That's another ten minutes of my life I'll never get back.
Oh, the joys of Usenet! Don't worry, I'm not going to waste
any more time with this idiot - I just had a moment of doubt
that I might possibly have fingered the wrong idiot.]

--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril

On 2008-04-24, in sci.logic, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
1) Your proof fails for n=1. You need to add "and n=>2" to the premises.

Quite so.

2) We need rules of inference. One way to define a "rule of inference"
is "any rule that specifies the rewriting and/or combination of premises
in such a way that the result is true IFF the premises are true." The
result is termed a theorem. We define "premise" as "an axiom, or any
theorem, or any conjunction of axioms and theorems proven true."

In order to characterise or define mathematics it must be explained
what counts as an axiom and why.

In this context we may take it as unproblematic what is logically correct reasoning.

3) You don't need the necessary truth of the premises. Inferred truth is
sufficient. (I don't think "necessary truth" is a useful term, except as
a synonym of "inferred truth.")

But what sort of premises are acceptable?

In order to make some use of
the definition of mathematics as "any theoretical activity which can
rely on theorem proving" we must explain just what "theorem proving"
amounts to.

Any logically correct argumentation from random premises
certainly does not count as "theorem proving".

herbzet wrote:

They exist as fried broccoli.

I have a follower! I'm like Ayn Rand!

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Aatu Koskensilta" <aatu.koskensilta@xortec.fi> wrote in message
news:EjWPj.341620$r71.148555@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
| On 2008-04-23, in sci.logic, uri wrote:
| > Mathematics is a formal language.
|
| What formal language is that?

Latin is a formal language.
"What formal language is that?" -- Aatu Koskensilta

Aatu Koskensilta is a formal fuckhead!

WHAT FORMAL FUCKHEAD IS THAT?

*plonk*

Anyone that claims "1=0" is off his fuckin' trolley.

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Phil the Farmer" <PArcher@astro.borchester.co.uk> wrote in message
news:67clk7F24ruelU1@mid.individual.net...
|
| "Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
| news:6t7Qj.55830$_h7.11858@newsfe05.ams2...
|
|
| > --
| > This message is brought to you by Androcles
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
|
| > "Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
| > news:fjb114p1ltma44djo23nbu6k4rlt3s1jb7@4ax.com...
| > | On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:40:42 +0100, "Androcles"
| > | <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| > |
| > | ... who knows, because he prefers to tell people to complain to
| > | Microsoft about the misbehaviour of Outlook Express, instead of
| > | working around it himself.
|
|
| > Some LYING shit calling itself "Angus Rodgers" has claimed I
wrote that.
| > What a FUCKHEAD.
|
| I say old chap,
| Don't you think it's a bit rich to forget that you said
|
| "Report it to Microsoft as a bug"
|
| when someone pointed out your misuse of the "--" sig delimiter

Outlook Express places it at the beginning of the missive, old fart,
and I use it. It's a pathetic delimiter anyway, as much use as tits
on a bull. Work around it if you wish, I can't be bothered.

Theorem proving amounts to writing a series of statements, each of which
is produced by inference rules applied to one or more of the premises.
NB that by this definition, any such statement in turn becomes a premise.

NB also that by the given definition, in mathematics "true" is a
property of statements. Any theorem is true by virtue of proof. Axioms
are true by definition.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:14:17 GMT, Aatu Koskensilta
aatu.koskensilta@xortec.fi> wrote:

But do you count just any demonstration of truth as mathematics?

Of course. No other way to settle issues.