Mathematical Logic and the Strengthened Liar's Paradox
in [Logic]
|
Prev: 3SAT - CNF to CNF Conversion
Next: how do I take care of units whether centimeters or kilometers? isotopic stability #565 Correcting Math
From: tchow on 4 Apr 2010 21:24 In article <tB9un.26508$3D3.20149(a)newsfe19.iad>, Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >You might be right here and it might not have helped. But it also might >have helped How could it have possibly helped? Introducing an irrelevant philosophical point, using the same words to mean something else entirely, cannot possibly help clarify a technical mathematical point. >and, for what it's worth, I wouldn't pretend to know whether >or not in Phil's mind he actually got confused between what I said and the >content of Tarski's theorem: both seem to be about the undefinability >of "truth" after all, despite certain intuition. So you agree that (1) what you said, and (2) Tarski's theorem, are two different things that seem to be the same. What good could it possibly do to introduce such confusion into the discussion? I don't know if Phil got confused or not either, but you could certainly have reduced the risk of confusion by not introducing it in the first place. -- Tim Chow tchow-at-alum-dot-mit-dot-edu The range of our projectiles---even ... the artillery---however great, will never exceed four of those miles of which as many thousand separate us from the center of the earth. ---Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences
From: Nam Nguyen on 4 Apr 2010 22:16 tchow(a)lsa.umich.edu wrote: > In article <tB9un.26508$3D3.20149(a)newsfe19.iad>, > Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> You might be right here and it might not have helped. But it also might >> have helped > > How could it have possibly helped? Introducing an irrelevant philosophical > point, using the same words to mean something else entirely, cannot possibly > help clarify a technical mathematical point. That's your opinion (if not problem): other might not see that as "irrelevant"; and I already stated what I believe relevant: 'both seem to be about the undefinability of "truth" after all, despite certain intuition'. > >> and, for what it's worth, I wouldn't pretend to know whether >> or not in Phil's mind he actually got confused between what I said and the >> content of Tarski's theorem: both seem to be about the undefinability >> of "truth" after all, despite certain intuition. > > So you agree that (1) what you said, and (2) Tarski's theorem, are two > different things that seem to be the same. Why do you believe 2 different issues, "things" can't be related, similar, ...., without further information? > What good could it possibly > do to introduce such confusion into the discussion? I don't get confused by hearing 2 different issues that seem related. Are you getting confused as such? > I don't know if > Phil got confused or not either, but you could certainly have reduced > the risk of confusion by not introducing it in the first place. Risk to whom? Should people be quite just because you feel that may - or may not - reduce a risk of confusion? I'd think you know the phrase "benefit of a doubt", don't you?
From: tchow on 5 Apr 2010 00:39 In article <SJbun.75790$9b5.12458(a)newsfe01.iad>, Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >That's your opinion (if not problem): other might not see that as "irrelevant"; >and I already stated what I believe relevant: 'both seem to be about the >undefinability of "truth" after all, despite certain intuition'. [...etc...] It's been long enough since we crossed swords that I'd forgotten how hilarious your posts were. Thanks for the entertainment, but I think I've had my fill for now. -- Tim Chow tchow-at-alum-dot-mit-dot-edu The range of our projectiles---even ... the artillery---however great, will never exceed four of those miles of which as many thousand separate us from the center of the earth. ---Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences
From: Nam Nguyen on 5 Apr 2010 01:12 tchow(a)lsa.umich.edu wrote: > In article <SJbun.75790$9b5.12458(a)newsfe01.iad>, > Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> That's your opinion (if not problem): other might not see that as "irrelevant"; >> and I already stated what I believe relevant: 'both seem to be about the >> undefinability of "truth" after all, despite certain intuition'. > [...etc...] > > It's been long enough since we crossed swords that I'd forgotten how > hilarious your posts were. Thanks for the entertainment, but I think > I've had my fill for now. Sure. Just call posts you don't like to hear as "hilarious" and leave. What's really new about your response anyway? (I've seen that a few times in the past already).
From: Nam Nguyen on 5 Apr 2010 01:17
Nam Nguyen wrote: > tchow(a)lsa.umich.edu wrote: >> In article <SJbun.75790$9b5.12458(a)newsfe01.iad>, >> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>> That's your opinion (if not problem): other might not see that as >>> "irrelevant"; >>> and I already stated what I believe relevant: 'both seem to be about the >>> undefinability of "truth" after all, despite certain intuition'. >> [...etc...] >> >> It's been long enough since we crossed swords that I'd forgotten how >> hilarious your posts were. Thanks for the entertainment, but I think >> I've had my fill for now. > > Sure. Just call posts you don't like to hear as "hilarious" and leave. > What's really new about your response anyway? (I've seen that a few times > in the past already). I also think it's a kind of "entertainment" to listen to an Inquisition voice and attitude in modern days, as we're living in! |