From: HawkLogic on
On Feb 10, 2:17 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2:16 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 10, 1:03 pm, HawkLogic <hawklo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Is there any way to know that accepted methods of logical proof do not
> > > lead to contradiction.
>
> > Yes.You're not familiar with the soundness theorem for first order
> > logic?
>
> Anyway, what specific logical principles do you doubt preserve
> consistency?
>
> MoeBlee

I doubt that consistency is always preserved when self-reference is
used.
From: Frederick Williams on
HawkLogic wrote:
>
> On Feb 10, 2:16 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 1:03 pm, HawkLogic <hawklo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Is there any way to know that accepted methods of logical proof do not
> > > lead to contradiction.
> >
> > Yes.You're not familiar with the soundness theorem for first order
> > logic?
> >
> > MoeBlee
>
> Godel seems to have found a way around soundness.

What has Godel got to do with the soundness of FOL?

--
.... A lamprophyre containing small phenocrysts of olivine and
augite, and usually also biotite or an amphibole, in a glassy
groundmass containing analcime.
From: HawkLogic on
On Feb 10, 3:54 pm, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...(a)tesco.net>
wrote:
> HawkLogic wrote:
>
> > On Feb 10, 2:16 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 10, 1:03 pm, HawkLogic <hawklo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Is there any way to know that accepted methods of logical proof do not
> > > > lead to contradiction.
>
> > > Yes.You're not familiar with the soundness theorem for first order
> > > logic?
>
> > > MoeBlee
>
> >Godelseems to have found a way around soundness.
>
> What hasGodelgot to do with the soundness of FOL?
>
> --
> ... A lamprophyre containing small phenocrysts of olivine and
> augite, and usually also biotite or an amphibole, in a glassy
> groundmass containing analcime.

Godel invented a method which has unexplored consequences.
From: Frederick Williams on
HawkLogic wrote:
>
> On Feb 10, 3:54 pm, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...(a)tesco.net>
> wrote:
> > HawkLogic wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 10, 2:16 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 10, 1:03 pm, HawkLogic <hawklo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Is there any way to know that accepted methods of logical proof do not
> > > > > lead to contradiction.
> >
> > > > Yes.You're not familiar with the soundness theorem for first order
> > > > logic?
> >
> > > > MoeBlee
> >
> > >Godel seems to have found a way around soundness.
> >
> > What has Godel got to do with the soundness of FOL?
>
> Godel invented a method which has unexplored consequences.

And what has that method got to do with the soundness of FOL?

I take it that you're talking about the arithmetization of syntax.

--
.... A lamprophyre containing small phenocrysts of olivine and
augite, and usually also biotite or an amphibole, in a glassy
groundmass containing analcime.
From: Frederick Williams on
HawkLogic wrote:
>
> On Feb 10, 2:17 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 2:16 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 10, 1:03 pm, HawkLogic <hawklo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Is there any way to know that accepted methods of logical proof do not
> > > > lead to contradiction.
> >
> > > Yes.You're not familiar with the soundness theorem for first order
> > > logic?
> >
> > Anyway, what specific logical principles do you doubt preserve
> > consistency?
> >
> > MoeBlee
>
> I doubt that consistency is always preserved when self-reference is
> used.

How does FOL self-refer?

--
.... A lamprophyre containing small phenocrysts of olivine and
augite, and usually also biotite or an amphibole, in a glassy
groundmass containing analcime.