/sci/ - Science & Math

PREVIOUS THREAD:
>>15215294

>>15227330
>Jech never defines "proof"
He never defines 'define' either. He never defines 'never' either. He never defines 'he' either. So neat, you attempt an argument from obfuscation of the meanings of words and just trying to muddy the waters and deconstruction of meaning. You can do that with anything and any word. So have fun with that.

>>15227422
Well, the problem is simple. As a grader, I can, using the math education I received (undergrad math major, some grad stats work, no grad math work) grade homework for Jech up to and including p. 156.
This is because I have perfectly serviceable insight into every definition Jech pp. 1-156.
My math education gives me what I need to understand Jech on these pages. However, I am totally unable to understand how to grade a student's homework if that homework depends on any definition after a false non-definition of "consistent" is given on p. 157.
So, your argument is nonsense because I can grade homework problems written by students who have studied up until p. 156.
After p. 157, I must either lie & cheat or admit that my math education doesn't give me what I need to understand the definition of "consistent" or anything that depends on the way Jech defines "consistent" on p. 157.

>>15227422
Right. But he *acts* as if he has given "proof" a mathematical definition.
And he hasn't.
He's being dishonest.
It's about the way italics are used to deceive the reader.
He defines "consistent" using *italics*.
This is really offensive and fraudulent.

>>15227422
>deconstruction of meaning
No, I'm not using Derrida or any intellectual anything. I'm applying the Hodges definition of explicit definitional extension to math texts. That's the origin of the editorial style I'm applying to Jech, followed in general by modern math texts.

Example of adhering to guard variable scope rules for Fitch derivations.
Note: the guard variable doesn't appear outside the subproof where it is used.

The details for verifying scoping rules for variables are well known in CS. See "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" by Abelson and Sussman [1].
[1] https://mitp-content-server.mit.edu/books/content/sectbyfn/books_pres_0/6515/sicp.zip/full-text/book/book.html

thread theme: http://mp3.hardnrg.com/morgan/Morgan-Decepticon.mp3

The simple fact remains: Jech has suggested that the guard variable scope rules for subproofs in Fitch derivations aren't related to "proof" or "consistency" even though he claims "formal proof" is.
What are we to make of this? There are two versions of math? One tolerant of these so-called "theorems" of Gödel that depend on some unexplained use of "proof" in a proof itself?
I'm not tolerant of this.
I'm intolerant of ignoring the work of Fitch in discovering genuine grammatical facts---actual patterns of usage that mathematicians will not give up no matter how much you badger them, no matter how much you try to humiliate them...
And the fact that absolutely fucking nobody can trace Fitch's discovery of guard variable scope rules to lexical scoping rules in programming languages...
It's a sin.
It's a sin, and it's a damn shame.

Gödel threads announcement
CURRENT THREADS
>So let me get this straight. There is no way to know if a mathematical statement is actually true? Then how do we know the incompleteness theorems are true?
>>15225448
The variable scoping rules for guard variables in subproofs, Jech. Hand them over!
>>15227330
ARCHIVED THREADS
>ACADEMIC FRAUD.
>>15215294
This is Gödel's "proof" that AC is independent of ZF
>>15212805
>you are cursed to never arrive at truth.. i hate him so much bros
>>15194007

Is there a link between modern pseudo-mythology and modern pseudo-mathematics?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_9G95Ozonw
https://soundcloud.com/lucifer-rothschild-363442434/seyyed-hossein-nasr-knowledge-and-the-sacred
Authentic knowledge vs. crap: the ecstasy of seeing an actual math formula versus Gödellian crap
How do you know when you're looking at Gödellian crap?
How about category theory? Is the linguistic obfuscation of category theory related to Gödellian crap, or is it different crap?
>DEAR
LORD
>GIVE
ME
>A
CRAP
>SORTER!
WE
>ALREADY
HAVE
>THE
CRAP!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8q9EIi863c
>In other words,
Send us the cure
>We've got the sickness
Already.

who or what is a "jech"

>>15231169

Computer science did not ignore Fitch's contribution, but they ignored the lineage of ideas and made it difficult to reconstruct the intellectual history.
https://mitp-content-server.mit.edu/books/content/sectbyfn/books_pres_0/6515/sicp.zip/full-text/book/book-Z-H-21.html#%_sec_3.2.1
>3.2.1 The Rules for Evaluation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20tvG54uZLg

>>15225448
>>15231015