'When Are Relations Neither True Nor False?
in [Math]
|
From: Nam Nguyen on 26 Mar 2010 17:59 Alan Smaill wrote: >> I'm sure your belief in the "absolute" truth of G(PA) is subjective, which >> you'd need to overcome - someday. Each of us (including Godel) coming to >> mathematics and reasoning has our own subjective "baggage". > > Why on earth do you think I have some belief in the " "absolute" truth " > of G(PA) ? I don't even know what that *means* . OK. Then on the meta level, do you think it's correct to say that G(PA) can be arithmetically false?
From: MoeBlee on 26 Mar 2010 19:25 On Mar 26, 4:16 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > MoeBlee wrote: > > On Mar 26, 3:11 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> if you could demonstrate a truly absolute abstract truth in mathematical > >> reasoning, I'd leave the forum never coming back. > > > Oh, sweet seduction, please don't tempt me so! > > Go ahead and demonstrate one, or prove any of my 4 principles is wrong. > If you can. Oh, Nam, how you make my heart all aflutter! MoeBlee
From: Nam Nguyen on 26 Mar 2010 19:35 MoeBlee wrote: > On Mar 26, 4:16 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> MoeBlee wrote: >>> On Mar 26, 3:11 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>>> if you could demonstrate a truly absolute abstract truth in mathematical >>>> reasoning, I'd leave the forum never coming back. >>> Oh, sweet seduction, please don't tempt me so! >> Go ahead and demonstrate one, or prove any of my 4 principles is wrong. >> If you can. > > Oh, Nam, how you make my heart all aflutter! Oh MoeBlee, how you fail time to time to technically show what I'd say about the foundation issues of FOL reasoning be wrong.
From: Marshall on 26 Mar 2010 22:09 On Mar 26, 4:35 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > MoeBlee wrote: > > On Mar 26, 4:16 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> MoeBlee wrote: > >>> On Mar 26, 3:11 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >>>> if you could demonstrate a truly absolute abstract truth in mathematical > >>>> reasoning, I'd leave the forum never coming back. > >>> Oh, sweet seduction, please don't tempt me so! > >> Go ahead and demonstrate one, or prove any of my 4 principles is wrong.. > >> If you can. > > > Oh, Nam, how you make my heart all aflutter! > > Oh MoeBlee, how you fail time to time to technically show what I'd say > about the foundation issues of FOL reasoning be wrong. That Moe has failed to do so in a way that you can understand is a failing, but it's not Moe's failing. Marshall
From: Nam Nguyen on 26 Mar 2010 23:57
Marshall wrote: > On Mar 26, 4:35 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> MoeBlee wrote: >>> On Mar 26, 4:16 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>>> MoeBlee wrote: >>>>> On Mar 26, 3:11 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>>>>> if you could demonstrate a truly absolute abstract truth in mathematical >>>>>> reasoning, I'd leave the forum never coming back. >>>>> Oh, sweet seduction, please don't tempt me so! >>>> Go ahead and demonstrate one, or prove any of my 4 principles is wrong. >>>> If you can. >>> Oh, Nam, how you make my heart all aflutter! >> Oh MoeBlee, how you fail time to time to technically show what I'd say >> about the foundation issues of FOL reasoning be wrong. > > That Moe has failed to do so in a way that you can understand > is a failing, but it's not Moe's failing. Where did Moe successfully demonstrate, say, an absolute truth that I failed to understand, or my 4 principles are wrong and I couldn't understand his demonstration? Or you're just full of babbling words with no technical substance, as usual? [It seems like a habit of yours that when you couldn't technically counter your opponent's argument then you just call him a mad dog!] |