> Do you believe this statement is true:

>     (n – n = 0) = (n = n)

> It says: "To say that the difference
> between n and n = 0, is to say that
> n and n are the same (n = n)."

> It seems quite clear to me that
> (0 difference) = (same as), and
> it also seems that that is just
> what the statement above says.

You’re mixing semantics and syntax.

> Perhaps the right question is not
> if the statement is true or false,
> but is it mathematically proper?

In case you consider ‘=’ being a binary relation N -> {1,0}
then you could very well say (n – n = 0) = (n = n).

If I were you I’d say (n-n = 0) <=> (n=n) and avoid confusing
use (or abuse, if you wish) of the ‘=’ symbol. (As it seems to
me you’re mixing the symbols of your metalanguage with
those of your objectlanguage.)

But then again, I’m not a mathematician/logician so in case I’m
utterly off line here, please correct me instead of
flaming me

–
Aatu Koskensilta   (squ…@seaga.org)
"Religion and politics – stigmata of a diseased society."

@In article <35F3B410.6E203…@rtsys.com>,
@Joseph Virzi  <jvi…@rtsys.com> wrote:
@
@:n-n=0 evaluates to 1 ( boolean TRUE )
@:
@:n=n evaluates to 1 ( boolean TRUE )
@:
@:Therefore
@:
@:(n-n=0) = (n=n) is a 1.
@:
@:I’m also assuming your = are really ==.
@
@In my best Ambrose Bierce style (from “A Mathematica Crib Sheet: But It’s
@OK, You’ll Need It”:
@
@x == y    Tests whether x is equal to y.  You may think it a perversion to
@          take the innocent = sign, which is used in mathematics to denote
@          a statement of fact (“x is equal to y”), and turn it into a
@          verb (“x = y” becomes “set x equal to y”), after which you
@          must invent a monster == to regain your statement of fact (“x
@          is equal to y”), but there you have it–computer science majors
@          will recognize the C programming language.
@
@I have never understood why K&R et al. didn’t use := for the assignment
@statement.  Because it required TWO symbols?!

        Because assignment is used roughly twice as often as equality test
is…  so by right it ought to be half as long!

                                                Ilias

Joseph Virzi <jvi…@rtsys.com> wrote in article
<35F3B46F.B950D…@rtsys.com>…

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> Why isn’t (n-n=0)-(n=n) = 0?

:n-n=0 evaluates to 1 ( boolean TRUE )
:
:n=n evaluates to 1 ( boolean TRUE )
:
:Therefore
:
n-n=0) = (n=n) is a 1.
:
:I’m also assuming your = are really ==.

In my best Ambrose Bierce style (from “A Mathematica Crib Sheet: But It’s
OK, You’ll Need It”:

x == y    Tests whether x is equal to y.  You may think it a perversion to
          take the innocent = sign, which is used in mathematics to denote
          a statement of fact (“x is equal to y”), and turn it into a
          verb (“x = y” becomes “set x equal to y”), after which you
          must invent a monster == to regain your statement of fact (“x
          is equal to y”), but there you have it–computer science majors
          will recognize the C programming language.

I have never understood why K&R et al. didn’t use := for the assignment
statement.  Because it required TWO symbols?!

Hunt-and-peck typists?

–Ron Bruck

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

Ian Goddard wrote:

> Do you believe this statement is true:

>     (n – n = 0) = (n = n)

> It says: "To say that the difference
> between n and n = 0, is to say that
> n and n are the same (n = n)."

> It seems quite clear to me that
> (0 difference) = (same as), and
> it also seems that that is just
> what the statement above says.

> Perhaps the right question is not
> if the statement is true or false,
> but is it mathematically proper?

> **************************************************************
> VISIT Ian Williams Goddard  ——–>  http://Ian.Goddard.net
> ______________________________________________________________

n-n=0 evaluates to 1 ( boolean TRUE )

n=n evaluates to 1 ( boolean TRUE )

Therefore

(n-n=0) = (n=n) is a 1.

I’m also assuming your = are really ==.

JSV

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> Do you believe this statement is true:

>     (n – n = 0) = (n = n)

> It says: "To say that the difference
> between n and n = 0, is to say that
> n and n are the same (n = n)."

> It seems quite clear to me that
> (0 difference) = (same as), and
> it also seems that that is just
> what the statement above says.

> Perhaps the right question is not
> if the statement is true or false,
> but is it mathematically proper?

Dear Ian William

It is not mathematically proper.
If it where, then (n-n=0)-(n=n) = 0

more about my opinion in this case : visit newsgroup sci.math, where the
same question(?) is posed.

Greetings Frank.

Romeni <rom…@aol.com> wrote:
>Why did you switch this discussion from sci.logic (where I found it
>the first time) to sci.math. My answers can can found in sci.logic.
>I’m not going to switch the NG.

It was not switched, it was crossposted, and you may have removed
sci.math later.  An article can have more than one newsgroup on the
Newsgroups: line.

I think I read somewhere that the AOL newsreader does not allow more
than one newsgroup if you change the line, but at least some versions
will preserve the list of newsgroups if it is already present in the
article that you follow up, possibly up to a limit (5 or so?).

Greetings,
Ørjan.

–
A pro-spam bill has passed the US Senate, and is now in the House of
Representatives.  See <http://www.cauce.org> and
<http://www.ybecker.net/>.