Beyond Incompleteness
in [Logic]
|
From: Charlie-Boo on 29 Jun 2010 22:34 On Jun 29, 6:09 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 29, 10:20 am, Charlie-Boo <shymath...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 29, 11:18 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 28, 6:29 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > > > > > Some time in the past, I tried to make sense of CBL. I couldn't do it. > > > > As far as I recall, each application of CBL required certain axioms that > > > > contained the meat of the mathematical insight of the original proofs. > > > > I could never even figure out the syntax. I tried asking various > > > questions to get a clearer understanding, and while I often > > > got responses, I never got answers to my questions. Eventually > > > I gave up. > > > It would be nice if you substantiated what you say. > > Here's an example thread: > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_frm/thread/b53fad4b83... I don't know why I did not answer. It is a single post by you that ends, "Those "à" characters seem like some sort of character encoding flaw to me." My best guess is that it wasn't a question and I had no idea what the characters were either. > I sent you various emails, and made various posts on sci.logic, > trying to figure out even simple things like what characters you > were trying to use. I never got that question answered. Again > note that I do not say you never responded; you did in fact > often respond. But you *were* pretty consistent about not > answering direct questions. Example? > Searching for that thread caused me to revisit some threads > from 2008 which reminded me of just how difficult it is to > have a conversation with you. > > > I spend > > inordinate amounts of time whenever anyone asks about CBL. One reader > > posted dozens of times challenging it. I answered every quesion - > > many more than once. > > I believe you think you thought you answered my questions. > > > > It's pretty clear that Charlie's approach to syntax is "if it > > > feels good, do it." Consider the "Wouldnt It be Cool if > > > These Were Equivalent?" thread. > > > That is not CBL, BTW. > > I know that. > > > I thought it would be obvious what they meant. > > Really, what do you think they mean? > > What they indicate to me is that you don't understand > much about formal language, since 2 and 3 both contain > obvious syntax errors. Since you're making up your > own syntax, (even if it is reminiscent of existing syntax) Then is it really a syntax error if I am making up the language? But I still point out that the syntax and semantics are the same as what you are used to, I just generalized the syntax and semantics by allowing |-wff in place of wff after a quantifier. > it's up to you to say what they mean. If I try to force > meaning on them on a best-guess basis, I get three > different ways of saying the same thing. What is that same thing? > Clearly they > don't mean to me what they mean to you. What do they mean to you? > > 1. |- (allX)P(X) > > 2. (allX) |- P(X) > > 3. ~ |- (existsX)~P(X) > > > Don't you naturally read them left-to-right, "|-" is "This is > > provable:", (allx) is "For all x" etc.? > > That doesn't help. Can you do that - read them left to right that way? Does "For all X we can prove P(X)." make sense to you? C-B > Marshall
From: Marshall on 30 Jun 2010 00:35 On Jun 29, 7:23 pm, Charlie-Boo <shymath...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 29, 5:03 pm, Chip Eastham <hardm...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 29, 5:21 am, Charlie-Boo <shymath...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Should you say something you cannot - and will not - defend? > > > Should you ask something if you will disregard the answer? > > > regards, chip > > Can you ever know what will happen? How? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning Marshall
From: Charlie-Boo on 1 Jul 2010 00:09 On Jun 30, 12:35 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 29, 7:23 pm, Charlie-Boo <shymath...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 29, 5:03 pm, Chip Eastham <hardm...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 29, 5:21 am, Charlie-Boo <shymath...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Should you say something you cannot - and will not - defend? > > > > Should you ask something if you will disregard the answer? > > > > regards, chip > > > Can you ever know what will happen? How? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning Better yet, check a psychology book - under delusion. Do you have a solid basis for believing that you can predict another person's actions? C-B > Marshall
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 1 Jul 2010 00:09 Charlie-Boo <shymathguy(a)gmail.com> writes: > Do you have a solid basis for believing that you can predict another > person's actions? You're pretty predictable yourself. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Charlie-Boo on 1 Jul 2010 19:20
On Jul 1, 12:09 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > Charlie-Boo <shymath...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > Do you have a solid basis for believing that you can predict another > > person's actions? > > You're pretty predictable yourself. > > -- > Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi) > > "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, darüber muss man schweigen" > - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Well, sanity is easier to predict than insanity, that's for sure. There's only one truth but there are many lies (especially here.) C-B |