Timeline for Is equality necessarily transitive? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 1 at 13:07 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 20 characters in body
|
| Jul 1 at 12:02 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 45 characters in body
|
| Jul 1 at 11:27 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 716 characters in body
|
| Jul 1 at 10:48 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 169 characters in body
|
| Jul 1 at 9:46 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 169 characters in body
|
| Jun 30 at 21:14 | comment | added | lee pappas | @MichaelCarey, it obeys Hao Wang's axiom of Identity, all I'm doing is generalizing the binary relation '=', so that when you see X = Y, the symbols X,Y are general constants rather than necessarily specific constants | |
| Jun 30 at 21:08 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 446 characters in body
|
| Jun 30 at 19:47 | comment | added | Michael Carey | Why does your proposed binary relation, have anything to do with equality- besides you using the symbol =? | |
| Jun 30 at 18:46 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 93 characters in body
|
| Jun 30 at 18:28 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 88 characters in body
|
| Jun 30 at 17:57 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 433 characters in body
|
| Jun 30 at 17:41 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 227 characters in body
|
| Jun 30 at 17:34 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 227 characters in body
|
| Jun 30 at 17:20 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 647 characters in body
|
| Jun 30 at 15:19 | comment | added | J Kusin | This whole formulation doesn’t work as you’ve been told. Nevertheless there is a problem of equality in math and computer science even where we say different types of things are equal and it’s incredibly hard to systematize it like for a theorem prover. Peter Freyd is a mathematician pessimistic about theorem provers for this reason. Conceivably mechansitically it could lead to situations where equality by computation is not transitive, because of the problem of equality | |
| Jun 30 at 14:56 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 411 characters in body
|
| Jun 30 at 14:17 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 411 characters in body
|
| Jun 30 at 2:49 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 13 characters in body
|
| Jun 30 at 2:40 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 304 characters in body
|
| Jun 30 at 1:48 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 304 characters in body
|
| Jun 30 at 1:26 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 387 characters in body
|
| Jun 29 at 23:10 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 387 characters in body
|
| Jun 29 at 21:45 | history | edited | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 387 characters in body
|
| Jun 29 at 17:57 | history | closed |
Mauro ALLEGRANZA David Gudeman J D Annika Jo Wehler |
Duplicate of Looking for a formal proof that x=x isn't a contingency | |
| Jun 29 at 17:36 | answer | added | J D | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jun 29 at 17:31 | comment | added | David Gudeman | You have already been told multiple times why this doesn't work. | |
| Jun 29 at 17:17 | answer | added | Annika | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jun 29 at 17:00 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 29 at 18:04 | |||||
| Jun 29 at 15:49 | history | asked | lee pappas | CC BY-SA 4.0 |