New essay on Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Solutions manual to Mechanical Behavior of Materials, 3E Norman E Dowling
Next: Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 28 Sep 2009 09:32 David C. Ullrich <dullrich(a)sprynet.com> writes: > For heaven's sake. If T and T* have the same axioms then they're the > same theory. Nam will no doubt soon chime in and point out we are, in comments like above, implicitly admitting something he was adamantly insisting on a while back... -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Nam Nguyen on 28 Sep 2009 17:47 Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > David C. Ullrich <dullrich(a)sprynet.com> writes: > >> For heaven's sake. If T and T* have the same axioms then they're the >> same theory. > > Nam will no doubt soon chime in and point out we are, in comments like > above, implicitly admitting something he was adamantly insisting on a > while back... > There might have been more than one points that I might have "adamantly insisted" in the past. So unless you spell it out I couldn't know what we're really talking about here.
From: Nam Nguyen on 28 Sep 2009 18:00 Nam Nguyen wrote: > Aatu Koskensilta wrote: >> David C. Ullrich <dullrich(a)sprynet.com> writes: >> >>> For heaven's sake. If T and T* have the same axioms then they're the >>> same theory. >> >> Nam will no doubt soon chime in and point out we are, in comments like >> above, implicitly admitting something he was adamantly insisting on a >> while back... >> > > There might have been more than one points that I might have "adamantly > insisted" in the past. So unless you spell it out I couldn't know what > we're really talking about here. But of course on the face value there shouldn't be anything wrong with DCU's statement: "If T and T* have the same axioms then they're the same theory".
From: Scott H on 28 Sep 2009 21:14 On Sep 27, 11:59 pm, George Greene <gree...(a)email.unc.edu> wrote: > Not exactly. It is purely completely over Scott's head, is what it > is. It might have some merit or relevance in the context of some > statement by someone who was actually familiar with the concepts. This is a message not just to George Greene, but to all of sci.math and sci.logic, particularly the member who keeps one-starring my posts. I have lived in suffering for five years, occasionally retching and deliberately avoiding suicide in large part to study Goedel's theorem. I've been acquainted with the theorem since I began teaching myself tensor calculus at age 14. I would appreciate at least some positive feedback -- even if only in the form of respect -- for going out of my way to write an essay for the mathematical community. I worked hard on it for you, and what you're trying to do is just plain rude. Do *not* underestimate my intelligence. I've studied this theorem for over ten years and have read the proof in Goedel's original manuscript. If you have objections or constructive criticism, state them politely, and I will consider them. But if you turn our pursuit of truth into a childish peacock display, I will look elsewhere for discussion, to the detriment these newsgroups. Thank you for your kindness.
From: Nam Nguyen on 28 Sep 2009 21:34
Scott H wrote: > On Sep 27, 11:59 pm, George Greene <gree...(a)email.unc.edu> wrote: >> Not exactly. It is purely completely over Scott's head, is what it >> is. It might have some merit or relevance in the context of some >> statement by someone who was actually familiar with the concepts. > > This is a message not just to George Greene, but to all of sci.math > and sci.logic, particularly the member who keeps one-starring my > posts. > > I have lived in suffering for five years, occasionally retching and > deliberately avoiding suicide in large part to study Goedel's theorem. > I've been acquainted with the theorem since I began teaching myself > tensor calculus at age 14. I would appreciate at least some positive > feedback -- even if only in the form of respect -- for going out of my > way to write an essay for the mathematical community. I worked hard on > it for you, and what you're trying to do is just plain rude. > > Do *not* underestimate my intelligence. I've studied this theorem for > over ten years and have read the proof in Goedel's original > manuscript. If you have objections or constructive criticism, state > them politely, and I will consider them. But if you turn our pursuit > of truth into a childish peacock display, I will look elsewhere for > discussion, to the detriment these newsgroups. > > Thank you for your kindness. In my 10 years or so hanging around these 2 fora, I've never seen a _strange_ post - to say the least - like this one of yours. I suppose these days even the cranks would run out of ideas to post! |