Recent content by DanTeplitskiy

Dear Micromass, Are you sure that I have been arguing over this thing all the time since then? :smile: The thing of publishing is a complicated matter, you know )) The goal was not to enjoy myself though. I wanted a discussion over my point... Yours, Dan

Dear Micromass, Are you sure that I have been trying to place it all the time since then? :smile: Yours, Dan

Dear Micromass, It is your way of thinking that one can not give an example of a logical error in math paper with things that are not well-formed formula. Sorry )) Yours, Dan

Dear Micromass, Are you sure that when we taik about logical errors we have to talk about well-formed formula (otherwise we can not do it) !? That is a thing I can not agree with)) Yours, Dan

Dear Micromass, This is an example of the logical error. I could not invent the example of this logical error in math different from Russell's paradox-like things... Yours, Dan

Dear Fredric, Nor do I! My point is that each of them separately is a fallacious, that is, containing a logical error, argument. Well it depends on what you mean by valid... As to me it contains logical errors but at the same time it is a theorem in predicate logic (that is quite...

Dear Fredrik, No! You missed the point, sorry. Please try to read my message#20 )) I thought you missed it - that is why I wanted to put it here again... Yours, Dan

Dear Rubi, Reasoning on legless Dan is an example of "contradictory premises" logical error. The same one as in Russell's paradox. Yours, Dan

Dear Rubi, It is a logical error to make conclusion such a way )) Which is not a good thing ))) Like in the below: Premise 1: Let Dan be a completely legless man Premise 2: Suppose, Dan’s right ankle is severely bleeding Conclusion: Then, according to his definition, Dan should be taken to...

Dear Micromass, Hi! Remember me? )) The reference is in the reference section of the paper)) It is a book by a Russian logician Ivin. He mentions this. By the way I am not quoting. Yours, Dan

Dear Rubi, Yes, in predicate logic Argument 1 is a theorem. I know it )) My point is that assumption R ∈ R contradicts the definition of R because if R ∈ R, R includes a member that is included in itself (R itself is such a member). Or, symbolically: R ∈ R → ∃ y: y ∈ R ∧ y ∈ y → R ≠ {x: x∉x}...

Dear Rubi, I said you correctly used the axiom of predicate logic )) Actually, I suspect you did not even try to read my message#20 after the sentence "Both assumptions (R∈R is true and R∈R is false) contradict the definition of R (Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of...

Dear Rubi, Russell's paradox is like: Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. Then it is a member of itself if and only if it is not a member of itself. - paradoxical incoherence. The usual conclusion that we make from the paradox is that there is no such R. "Let...

Dear Rubi, I answered your first question as well as I could. "∃R∀x(x∈R↔x∉x) is false" - this is correct, of course :) There is no such R :). I am not making any alternative "my" axiomatic system )))). What exactly (which line) have you failed to understand in my message#20? Yours, Dan

Dear Rubi, You correctly applied the axiom of predicate calculus. Have you read my message #20 above? Have you understood everyithing there? Yours, Dan