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: Marshall on 4 Oct 2009 03:13 On Oct 3, 1:17 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > On Oct 3, 10:13 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> You've made it a pointless debate really. > > > The "debate" was pointless from the moment you made up > > your wacky idea; don't blame Jesse for your inability to > > understand the situation. > > [...] > For a change, why don't you and others really ... really examine my examples > AND points, technically in details and offer where my reasoning be wrong. I did, repeatedly. It was meritless drivel. I offered many counterarguments. You did not respond to them. Eventually I desisted. > Are your guys up to that? Or your guys only have personal innuendo attacks? I make no innuendo; innuendo is indirect and covert. On the contrary, my criticism is direct and forthright: you are a talentless, self- important buffoon. You original thesis was a febrile spasm of misunderstanding and mental rigidity, a petulant child's finger-painting impersonating a work of logic. Your only manifest abilities are self-aggrandizement and histrionic posturing at victimhood. Nothing but an overpowering overestimation of your own abilities could cause you to cling to such an untenable position for more than a few minutes. Marshall
From: Nam Nguyen on 4 Oct 2009 04:16 Marshall wrote: > On Oct 3, 1:17 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> Marshall wrote: >>> On Oct 3, 10:13 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>>> You've made it a pointless debate really. >>> The "debate" was pointless from the moment you made up >>> your wacky idea; don't blame Jesse for your inability to >>> understand the situation. >> [...] >> For a change, why don't you and others really ... really examine my examples >> AND points, technically in details and offer where my reasoning be wrong. > > I did, repeatedly. It was meritless drivel. I offered many > counterarguments. Really? Like what? Can you summarize them here - many months later - in 1 or 2 sentences? Or you just said this because most likely nobody would remember right off who did or did not say what or did or didn't respond to whom. At least just few post ago I had a specific example of T = {x+y=0} to show the language of T is defined by T's axioms. Would you be able to refute that now in 1 or 2 paragraphs? Or you'd - again - resort to "I did repeatedly" without doing any real refuting? > You did not respond to them. Eventually I desisted. Are you sure I didn't respond to the points you raised, even when I responded to others in the thread on the same issue? I don't think you have a proof that I didn't, one way or another, respond to your key points in your refute. > >> Are your guys up to that? Or your guys only have personal innuendo attacks? > > I make no innuendo; innuendo is indirect and covert. On the contrary, > my criticism is direct and forthright: you are a talentless, self- > important buffoon. Like I said before, an Inquisitor, a hater, or an intoxicated could say that much! > You original thesis was a febrile spasm of misunderstanding > and mental rigidity, a petulant child's finger-painting impersonating > a work of logic. Your only manifest abilities are self-aggrandizement > and histrionic posturing at victimhood. Nothing but an overpowering > overestimation of your own abilities could cause you to cling to > such an untenable position for more than a few minutes. What's new with your non-technical babbling and personal attacks? Is it true the language of T = {x+y=0} is defined-able by T's lone axiom "x+y=0"? That is a _simple_ yes-or-no question. Can you answer and give your supporting reason? If you don't answer that then nothing you say would matter _at all_.
From: Nam Nguyen on 4 Oct 2009 04:25 Marshall wrote: > On Oct 3, 1:31 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> Marshall wrote: >>> On Oct 3, 10:33 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>>> Aatu Koskensilta wrote: >>>>> Those who feel their discoveries have >>>>> been unjustly ignored, their cogent arguments met with incredulous >>>>> stares and silence, and so on, often find comfort in the idea that >>>>> various famous thinkers have in the past had to battle stagnant >>>>> orthodoxy and mindless regurgitation of received wisdom, all alone, >>>>> armed with nothing but their unwavering conviction and superb >>>>> intellect, understood and appreciated only by later generations >>>> Kind of a long sentence, I'd think. >>> If you dropped everything and spent the rest of your life >>> studying English, I doubt you could attain the facility with >>> it that he has now. I'd avoid criticizing his diction if I were >>> you. >> I was at all thinking his writing is worse at all. Just that more >> than one time in my past, my *American* professors advised to me >> my sentences had been too long obscuring the main points. >> >> That's all. >> [...] >> I'm here only to concentrate on technical points and issues. >> So I wouldn't be interested in what you're saying here. > > Yes, yes. That's why you pointed out the length of > that sentence: because you're here only to concentrate > on technical points and issues. Since when posting on technical issues means one is forbidden to have a few non-technical here and there or occasionally? Really. Is that all you could argue in the sci.*logic* forum?
From: Rupert on 4 Oct 2009 07:22 On Sep 24, 8:21 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> writes: > > The translation of the proposition P as "P is not provable in ..." is > > argued untenable here: > > >http://www.scribd.com/doc/88248/Wittgenstein-on-Godel > > (Putnam and Floyd) > > Anything at all can be argued. In this instance, Putnam and Floyd don't > argue very convincingly. > If we found a proof in PM of the negation of the Gödel sentence of PM, we wouldn't necessarily feel compelled to abandon the idea that every sentence in the first-order language of arithmetic had a determinate truth-value. But if we found a proof in PA of the negation of the Gödel sentence for PA, we might start to waver. Perhaps the point would be better expressed with relation to this system. In the event of such a proof being found the coherence of our conception of natural number would be seriously undermined. Your feeling of confidence that such a thing could not happen has to be distinguished from the mathematical content of Gödel's proof. That's one way of understanding Putnam and Floyd, and I don't see what's wrong with that. I am not sure where John Jones wants to go with this.
From: Marshall on 4 Oct 2009 11:22
On Oct 4, 1:16 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > On Oct 3, 1:17 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> Marshall wrote: > >>> On Oct 3, 10:13 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >>>> You've made it a pointless debate really. > >>> The "debate" was pointless from the moment you made up > >>> your wacky idea; don't blame Jesse for your inability to > >>> understand the situation. > >> [...] > >> For a change, why don't you and others really ... really examine my examples > >> AND points, technically in details and offer where my reasoning be wrong. > > > I did, repeatedly. It was meritless drivel. I offered many > > counterarguments. > > Really? Like what? Can you summarize them here - many months later - > in 1 or 2 sentences? Why should I? I see no reason to believe you'd respond any differently. Why waste my time? Go look it up if you're interested, which you're not. > Or you just said this because most likely > nobody would remember right off who did or did not say what or > did or didn't respond to whom. I well recall also that you had tremendous difficulty remembering things even a week or two later. I recall various times where you made some claim, then claimed that you hadn't made such a claim, and I carefully documented that you had, and you didn't respond. > At least just few post ago I had a specific example of T = {x+y=0} to show > the language of T is defined by T's axioms. Would you be able to refute > that now in 1 or 2 paragraphs? Or you'd - again - resort to "I did repeatedly" > without doing any real refuting? Again, I've done this repeatedly, and I see no reason to think the result would be any different this time. Note for example how you responded to Jesse's recent rehash of the issue: more nonsense. > > You did not respond to them. Eventually I desisted. > > Are you sure I didn't respond to the points you raised, even when I responded > to others in the thread on the same issue? Yes, completely. > I don't think you have a proof that I didn't, one way or another, respond to > your key points in your refute. The public record is proof. > >> Are your guys up to that? Or your guys only have personal innuendo attacks? > > > I make no innuendo; innuendo is indirect and covert. On the contrary, > > my criticism is direct and forthright: you are a talentless, self- > > important buffoon. > > Like I said before, an Inquisitor, a hater, or an intoxicated could > say that much! Yes: people can say things. Good point; strong response. > > You original thesis was a febrile spasm of misunderstanding > > and mental rigidity, a petulant child's finger-painting impersonating > > a work of logic. Your only manifest abilities are self-aggrandizement > > and histrionic posturing at victimhood. Nothing but an overpowering > > overestimation of your own abilities could cause you to cling to > > such an untenable position for more than a few minutes. > > What's new with your non-technical babbling and personal attacks? The new personal attacks come with greater directness, clarity and precision. > Is it true the language of T = {x+y=0} is defined-able by T's lone axiom > "x+y=0"? That is a _simple_ yes-or-no question. Can you answer and give > your supporting reason? Certainly I can answer and give supporting reasons. The proof of this is the fact that I have done so many times. Marshall |