How Can ZFC/PA do much of Math - it Can't Even Prove PA is Consistent (EASY PROOF)
in [Math]
|
Prev: ? theoretically solved
Next: How Can ZFC/PA do much of Math - it Can't Even Prove PA is Consistent (EASY PROOF)
From: Marshall on 8 Jul 2010 21:15 On Jul 8, 3:42 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > On Jul 7, 8:58 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 7, 7:22 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > > That's all the _technical_ arguments an intellectual clown like you, Marshall, > > > could ever say! > > PA is provably consistent. Learn why, or shut [...] up. > > Yet that hasn't stopped the mathematician Ed Nelson from > searching for a proof that PA is inconsistent. > > > Give it up, loon. PA is provably consistent. Deal with it. > > If those who even entertain the possibility that PA is > inconsistent are "loons," then I guess that makes Nelson > and Nguyen (and myself, since I keep bringing up Nelson) > a bunch of "loons." You and Nam are certainly loons. I have no knowledge of Ed Nelson, other than what you've said about him here. And I trust your ability to faithfully represent others' views about as well as I'd trust a mollusk to compose a symphony. > It would be poetic justice for Nelson to complete his proof > and someone to tell Spight: > > "PA is provably _in_consistent. Learn why, or shut up!" If it turns out to be inconsistent, then I'll revise my views. Meanwhile, shut up, idiot. Marshall
From: Transfer Principle on 8 Jul 2010 23:00 On Jul 8, 6:15 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:. > And I [don't] trust your ability to faithfully represent > others' views No need to. The link is right here: http://www.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/hm.pdf
From: Marshall on 9 Jul 2010 11:32 On Jul 8, 8:00 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > On Jul 8, 6:15 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:. > > > And I [don't] trust your ability to faithfully represent > > others' views > > No need to. The link is right here: > > http://www.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/hm.pdf An interesting read! And far less stupid than I had feared. But ultimately I found it unconvincing. Marshall
From: MoeBlee on 9 Jul 2010 11:34 On Jul 8, 10:00 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > On Jul 8, 6:15 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:. > > > And I [don't] trust your ability to faithfully represent > > others' views > > No need to. The link is right here: > > http://www.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/hm.pdf An interesting object lesson there. Cranks can't even begin to appreciate Nelson's paper (let alone his book 'Predicative Arithmetic') since cranks don't even understand the basic symbolic logic used, let alone the notions from mathematical logic such as extenstion by defintion, interpretability, completeness theorem, models, etc. MoeBlee
From: George Greene on 10 Jul 2010 12:42
On Jul 9, 11:32 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > No need to. The link is right here: > > >http://www.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/hm.pdf We could have another thread on this paper. Nelson is not going to stoop to sci.logic, but the point is, what he is saying is sufficiently crankISH that the people who usually disagree with the cranks might be able to disagree with Nelson (or agree critically) in a way that might be intellectually productive (unlike what we are doing with the cranks), about issues that may actually be legitimate (which has hitherto been obscured for us, by the crankiness of the cranks). |