In a Consistent System, Can a True Sentence Imply a False One?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: when math defines the boundary between finite versus infinite at 10^500 #696 Correcting Math
Next: FLT like 4Color Mapping, Poincare C. and Kepler Packing #697 Correcting Math
From: Sergei Tropanets on 31 Jul 2010 19:12 On Jul 31, 11:29 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > Sergei Tropanets <trop.ser...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > It was. In fact, Godel set forward this argument at his first > > presentation of 1st incompleteness theorem at philosophy conference. > > The argument makes no apparent sense since "PA is inconsistent" is not a > finitistically meaningful statement in Hilbert's sense. > And in the same way incompleteness, i. e. the fact that there exist a formal proof in PA which ends with Q/\notQ, not only finitistically meaningful but it is quite possible to prove it finitistically (by producing a concrete explicit example). Sergei Tropanets
From: Marshall on 31 Jul 2010 22:00 On Jul 31, 6:19 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > It's not a spelling-of-proper-names, newsgroup, you know. > > If you say so, Marital Spite, if you say so. You misspelled "martial." On a trip to Japan to study aikido, one of the other apprentices noticed that pun on my first name and thereafter called me "Mr. Budo." Or, since both my first name and last name are homonyms of English words, you could just go with "marshal spite" which makes my name a complete sentence. Then there are those who write it "Sprite." Great: I'm an undistinguished sugary soda pop. Hmmm.... What's a pun I can make off of "Koskensilta?" Marshall
From: Marshall on 31 Jul 2010 22:10 On Jul 31, 6:41 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > On Jul 31, 2:26 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > > >> Why do you think Nam is insincere? > > > He slings insults at MoeBlee, then supposedly offers advice, saying > > "Hope that would help you somehow." The advice, while apparently > > expressing virtues, is the sort Nam himself entirely avoids > > taking. Thus I don't believe he is sincere about the value of the > > virtues thus expressed. > > We can be very blind when it comes to our behaviour, actions, even > deeply held beliefs. It's possible Nam sincerely believes he's doing his > best to be virtuous, to take his own advice. After all everyone gets > their knickers in a knot every now and then, over wrongs real or > imaginary inflicted on them, and rash words are exchanged, but in the > end it's the thought that counts and so on and so forth. Perhaps it > could be called a form of insincerity; such extreme blindness is almost > invariably to an extent willful. Yeah, ima stick with "insincere." If it were really true that "it's the thought that counts" I would have gotten credit for how much time I spent trying not to misspell "Shoenfield" even though in the end I actually did totally and completely and miserably fail to spell it correctly.* And what's with "behaviour" and "knickers?!" It's almost as if you've given up on proper English and are just making up words at random, as they do in the UK. Marshall * This credit would have come directly from you.
From: Marshall on 31 Jul 2010 22:17 On Jul 31, 12:31 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > "Lighten up," said by Aatu Koskensilta, belongs in a class with "Hey, > > I'm feeling you on that, bro," said by Kurt Godel, or something like > > that. > > This is either slander or libel -- I never remember which is which -- As a mnemonic device, recall that "libel" sounds like "Bible"-- and both are written. Marshall
From: Marshall on 31 Jul 2010 22:20
On Jul 31, 12:51 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > > Certainly. I'll return to this in a later post, in news as my > reflections and advice are quite general. In the meanwhile, I suggest > you mull over Torkel's wise if somewhat whimsical words: > > In order to count as a major nuisance, it is of course not enough just > to consistently contradict people. You must locate an actual weak spot > in their argument, and criticize that weak spot in terms that your > opponent will be forced to recognize as justified. Of course this > can't always be done. Many posters of a sectarian bent, for example, > will not recognize any criticism whatsoever of their argument, or of > the argument of their guru, as in any way justified. In such cases you > must be content with playing to the gallery. Basically, however, your > aim as a major nuisance is to establish intellectual contact with your > opponent, opening his eyes to certain facts or difficulties. The only person on this newsgroup that reminds me of is you, Aatu. Marshall |