Math Forum / Mathematics / Mathematical Logic / April 2005

Hi, my name is Jeremy. I am a Nomenologist, which is a person who
studies names & its influences on personality. I have been studying
this theory for over 10 years and ive as of late just started giving
readings with the method ive created. By taking the first name OR the

and The Truman Show is True.
and Bill Gates is the worlds most recognised BILLionaire,
Lady Di died,
HawKING is the smartest,

I'm not particularly sophisticated in mathematical logic, so this
question may seem absurd, but suppose we have a theorem which we know
is unprovable in some system. Is it possible that there is an infinite
sequence of 'proofs' in that system that APPROACH a proof of the

What are unnatural numbers?

The apparent absense of a countable set of some data type
does not imply the existence of a larger set.  It may be
the structure of the data type that it is 'unlistable', not
its cardinality.  The virtual quantitative notion of a larger

What is the relation between sets and their elements (provided, of
course, they have any)?
Is it the relation of identity or of parthood, or in some sense both of
identity and of parthood?

Logic was really just an attempt to define a base of computing.  They
are really saying that given:
A. A r.e. finite set of axioms P i.e. P(axiom).
B. A recursive map Q to a finite r.e. set of theorems from any axiom or

I wonder whether the study of infinite sets is somehow different to all
other mathematics, in that there can be no physical system that it can
model.
The motion of planets is modelled by calculus, sub-atomic particles is

1. If someone says "I have a system that produces X" and in their
paper that introduces and explains the system there are no examples of
an X that is produced, does that demonstrate that the system cannot
produce X and the statement that it produces X is false?

The below is an old 1990s post of mine archived in File 106 of my
website
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
This exposition is not only a correction of one of mathematic's most

What is wrong with saying that God works in Mysterious ways?

You don't have to go very far to find examples of proof by reductio
ad absurdum in Euclid. Only up to book I, Prop. 6, as a matter of
fact, which is presented below (as extracted from where we all
extract our Euclid).

e.g.
A You underestimate the powers of the force.
B Yes I do.
Can B be telling the truth?  Why / why  not?

Okay, suppose you have two objects, where one object A represents the other
object B, and you can always obtain one object from the other.
I would like to write A = B (to do replacements), but technically, they are
not of the same type, so it doesn't seem like you can really say ...

I'm not sure if the actual proof is either 'direct' - i.e. by
construction (correct meaning of 'direct'?) or 'indirect' - i.e. by
contradiction (correct meaning of 'indirect'?). What do YOU think?