| Thread | Last Post | Replies |
|
| Classical Modal Logic, Semantics | 30 Sep 2006 18:40 GMT | 4 |
Any suggestion about "Relational Model for Classical Modal Logic"?
|
| The Tractatus and Logic today | 30 Sep 2006 15:07 GMT | 10 |
The author of the Tractatus intended it to be a mystical document that, by annexing logical discourse, allowed mysticism to triumph over the best that a logico-materialist view of the world had to offer against the mystical vision. This is why it makes uncanny reading. For
|
| THE FIELD, THE PARTICLES AND THE DEATH OF PHYSICS | 29 Sep 2006 22:52 GMT | 5 |
At the end of his career (in 1954) Einstein predicts a possible death of physics: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains
|
| EINSTEIN: THE GENIUS AMONG GENIUSES WHO KILLED PHYSICS | 29 Sep 2006 18:51 GMT | 136 |
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ "Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson "And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles,
|
| THE EHRENFEST PARADOX | 29 Sep 2006 17:04 GMT | 27 |
By the end of Chapter 23 in his "Relativity" Einstein claims that measuring rods laid out along the rim of a rotating disc are Lorentz contracted whereas those laid out along the radius are not and therefore the ratio of the circumference and the diameter, as judged by
|
| phrase search | 29 Sep 2006 16:36 GMT | 1 |
Not mathematician, could someone explains to me in plain words what this pseudo code means. If you provide an example it would be very appreciated. I understand the first part. Many thanks
|
| Question on Counterfactual Conditionals | 28 Sep 2006 11:42 GMT | 23 |
I have recently read "Useful Counterfactuals" by Costello and McCarthy, 1999, and have a question about an example there -- the Skiing Problem. ( http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/counterfactuals.pdf ) Its "real world" scenario is as follows:
|
| ASSIGNMENT FOR CLEVER EINSTEINIANS | 28 Sep 2006 11:10 GMT | 13 |
Clever Einsteinians should reconsider the problem in http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4 by applying Einstein's 1911 formula: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
|
| Mathematical SOAP Operas | 27 Sep 2006 23:29 GMT | 406 |
Mathematical SOAP Operas ~v~~ The difficulty with definitions drafted in the form of "set of all points . . ." (SOAP) is that we're still left with a bunch of points
|
| Mathematical strings | 27 Sep 2006 11:38 GMT | 14 |
A mathematical string is a pictogram, a synthesis of geometry, mathematics and human intentions. The human intention is to create start and end, so that elements in a string can be counted. To create 'start' and 'finish', start and finish are conflated with the
|
| ORDINAL NUMBERS #1 | 27 Sep 2006 02:46 GMT | 12 |
This is the first of several posts based on some handwritten notes I wrote about ordinals numbers in 1991. Corrections and/or additions, if any, will be posted in this thread, and later posts
|
| VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT AND EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT | 27 Sep 2006 01:36 GMT | 4 |
The main concern of Einstein's hypnotists is to camouflage the fact that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source and therefore Einstein's theory (and modern physics in general) is just a farce. The camouflage involves even simulated fights among
|
| Three Turing machines | 26 Sep 2006 23:44 GMT | 4 |
Are there any enthusiasts for playing around with Turing machines out there? :-) I'm finishing writing something at the moment, and one (short) chapter introduces the idea of a Turing machine and describes, as examples,
|
| Question about Frege's Theorem | 26 Sep 2006 11:19 GMT | 29 |
By Frege's Theorem, I mean the result that second-logic plus Hume's Principle is sufficient to prove second-order arithmetic. Hume's Principle is the intuitively true statement that the number of a predicate or concept F is equal to the number of the concept G iff
|
| No complete set of reals? Absurd, but proven here... | 26 Sep 2006 06:16 GMT | 11 |
The set of all reals, R, is said to be uncountable and therefore unlistable: but it is not necessary to list the set to construct a Cantorian diagonal-type number from its members; it is only necessary that its members be distinguishable and that one is free to choose from
|