Math Forum / Mathematics / Mathematical Logic / July 2008

Hi. Do you know some things which could make FOL more practical (I'm
thinking about shortening proofs in ZFC)
I know about these:
Natural Deduction

I'm having problems with my dissertation project and the data analysis
of some questionnaires.According to the kolmogorov- smirnov test my
data is over the limit of  0.05, which means that is non-normally
distributed. The problem is that I cannot use non-parametric tests due

Notation:
Q - formal system(logical&nonlogical axioms, etc.) of robinsons
arithmetic
wff - well formed formula

Each week at my Uni a postgrad is offered the chance to briefly talk
about a topic. For my turn, today, I talked about the significance of
Godel's theorems to issues outside arithmetic. I gave out a handout,
reproduced in its entirety toward the end of this post. But first I will ...

[Note: There is no importance whatsoever attached to writting
variables in upper or lower case here, both sets and proper
classes(classes that are not sets in this theory) are writtin using
both lower and upper case letters without discrimination].

Dearly beloved logicians, amature and pro among us,
We've been slaving in newsgroup all day and night over dry academic
subjects. I thought we could now have some amusement on logic at this
moment!

Introduction
THIS THEORY is a class theory, it contain no Ur-elements, so it
contain some classes that are sets, others are not sets and are named
proper classes, some are named inner proper classes, others are named

Theory /\ is the set of all sentences entailed by (using FOL with
identity and the primitives "in" and "V" were V is a constant)  the
following non logical axioms:
Definition: x is a set  iff  x in V

When I refer to the term structure, it is something along the lines as
this wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_(mathematical_logic)
I'm trying to investigate any way to formalize the concept of the

I'm trying to express this statement in FOL: Every word has a concept
associated w/ it, and every concept has a word associated w/ it. Would
it be:
For all (x)(Cx<->Wx)

Someday there should be a sci.art, since everything is grounded in
science, even art and poetry and
music are fated purposeful activity in an Atom Totality.
While doing the dishes tonight I watched a bit of Doctor Who, where

Recent posts have brought to my attention the problem of defining set
membership. A primary problem, it seems to me, is the definition of an
object or element of a set. There are at least two possibile definitions
- objects (elements) have set-defined PROPERTIES, or objects have ...

Inertia and Spin. / My opinion./
1.
Aristotle.
Every object needs force/power/energy for its moving .

Old Greek Theory
By: Douglas Eagleson
eaglesondouglas123@yahoo.com
I have begun to Usenet post in basic modern scientific form.  It is

Other than the hypotenuse, no ratio of the sum of the squares of all
the sides of non isosceles right triangle, to the square of one side
is rational.-Aiya-Oba
  Thus,  a^2  +  b^2  +  c^2/c^2   =    2