Math Forum / Mathematics / Mathematical Logic / February 2004

How  could we go about proving a certain "statement" S to be undecidable
because it's a non-wff ? It's kind of a silly question for typically we
don't have
to prove so; just looking at the statement and we'd know. For instance,

The purpose of the following axiomatic system is to generate a hierarchy of
objects under the order relations of arithmetic. An unlimited number of
related but discrete sets can be generated in an ordered hierarchy. The sets
so generated represent a hierarchy of infinite sets.

Consider the expression (e=belongs to)
(exist B)(forall x) [x e B <--> x e z & p(x)].
It is stated that B is not free in p(x).  Since p(x) is within the
scope of (exist B), is B not free in p(x) anyway?  The scope of the

Hi,
Could anyone please help with the following:
Consider the following axoims:
(1) Exy(Rxy)

Do you think there is anything wrong with the following argument? If so
what?
Vico: Something that is necessarily existing
Lao: Martians that are Vicos

 I've been studying symbolic logic for some time now.  While I'm far
 from being an expert in it - or even good at it - the actual
 operators, proofs and rules of inference that I've been studying
 seem fairly straight-forward.

The Liar Paradox as a Nonfactual Statement
ABSTRACT
The truth of a factual statement, e.g., "Einstein died in 1936," depends
on the truth of the facts it asserts. It follows that a nonfactual

The number 1 does not have any length when not associated with some finite
unit.
From this point of view it has no particular claim to being finite beyond
its practical use.

I don't believe in God or anything, I just need logic help..:)
Let's assume that:
Black boards are, by definition, black.
Hence, to say that:

Hopefully now *some* of you understand the issue I'm making with the
math world, as they have this simple logical mistake, which so far
they're refusing to even acknowledge in the mainstream.
That leaves me arguing on Usenet, and even then moving from sci.math

Doy have any body some ideya about  " Z "   Specification :
Correct and extend the Z specification for the file system :
-Corrections – The predicates in the operation schema Create File does
not ensure that normal users are associated with no more than 50 files

W. Huge  Woodin said he gave a solution that yield CH is false. What
was it gonging on?

Discrete enough to outrun a predator or the slowest member of your own
species.
THE  PROBABILITY  INSTINCT
It looks as if Kant, who thought our minds structure our perceptions, was

Can anyone help me with these derivations? If someone could email me
showing basically how these are done it would be greatly appreciated.
{-S > D, -S v (-D > K), -D} Therefor: K
{(L = N) > C, (L = N) v (P > -E), -E > C, -C} Therefor: -P

Can you believe that the oldest stone building in the world has a
mathematical perfection? Check:
www.star-mysteries.com