'When Are Relations Neither True Nor False? [Logic]

Prev: geometry precisely defining ellipsis and how infinity is in the midsection #427 Correcting Math
Next: Accounting for Governmental and Nonprofit Entities, 15th Edition Earl Wilson McGraw Hill Test bank is available at affordable prices. Email me at allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com if you need to buy this. All emails will be answered ASAP.

From: Nam Nguyen on 5 Mar 2010 00:21

MoeBlee wrote:
> On Mar 4, 12:41 pm, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...(a)tesco.net>
> wrote:
>> MoeBlee wrote:
>>
>>> It's revealing that you choose to take your conversation with Aatu as
>>> a "debate".
>> With so many people involved we could call it a massdebate.
>
> Should be called 'therapy with an unwilling patient'.

No. Should be called 'therapy of an unwilling (purported) therapist'.

>
> MoeBlee
>

From: Nam Nguyen on 5 Mar 2010 00:25

MoeBlee wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:13 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> Aatu, *you're a debater who doesn't seem to have the in-good-faith spirit*
>> in debating technical matter.
>
> It's revealing that you choose to take your conversation with Aatu as
> a "debate".

It's hard for one to escape noticing you've rarely had any real technical
substance in your utterances.

>
> MoeBlee
>

From: Nam Nguyen on 5 Mar 2010 01:34

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

> So, you want to deny that Goedel's theorem is true.

The "crank" tends to assert Goedel's theorem is false.
The "standard theorist" would insist GIT is true.

That leaves the "rebel" the only side who observes the
method in Godel's work is invalid.

Except for the relativists, why should we care about invalid
truth or falsehood?

From: David Bernier on 5 Mar 2010 02:56

Newberry wrote:
> On Mar 4, 9:23 am, David Bernier <david...(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
>> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>>> Newberry <newberr...(a)gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On Mar 3, 9:37 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>>>>> Newberry <newberr...(a)gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> This is my main motivation:
>>>>>> G�del's sentence has the same form as (3.1):
>>>>>> ~(Ex)(Ey)(Pxy & Qy) (4.1)
>>>>>> Pxy means that x is the proof of y, where x, y are G�del numbers of
>>>>>> wffs or sequences of wffs. Q has been constructed such that only one y
>>>>>> = m satisfies it, and m is the G�del number of (4.1).
>>>>>> Assume that G�del's sentence (4.1) is not derivable, i.e. that
>>>>>> ~(Ex)Pxm (4.2)
>>>>>> is true. Then (4.1) is ~(T v F). Thus if G�del's sentence is not
>>>>>> derivable it is neither true nor false.
>>>>> So, you want to deny that Goedel's theorem is true.
>>>> We better get this straigh first. No. I do not want to deny that
>>>> Goedel's theorem is true.
>>> Well, I'm sorry if I misrepresented your opinion, but you *just*
>>> suggested that if (4.2) is true, then (4.1) is neither true nor false
>>> and hence is not true.
>> I read:
>> [ Newberry:]
>> " G�del's sentence has the same form as (3.1):"
>>
>> I've been wondering if there's a typo. there and if it ought to
>> be numbered in the quote above (4.1) and not (3.1).
>
> It is out of context. he whole story is here
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/26833131/RelationsAndPresuppositions-2010-0....

There was a debate of some kind about "denoting", etc. between
Bertrand Russell and Strawson, the author of the book you quote from.

This is according to an article published by someone
under the name _Nearly_Anonymous_ here:

http://bookstove.com/non-fiction/the-russell-strawson-debate-a-useful-dichotomy/

Strawson writes "[...] if its subject class is empty" .

He seems to be saying something about expressions such as, say,
"The current King of France" [there is no King of France today].

Either "The current King of France" is married, or (***)
"The current King of France" is not married.

For Russell, (***) would have been a fine sentence and a true one.
But perhaps Strawson would have disagreed.

David Bernier

From: Marshall on 5 Mar 2010 03:32

On Mar 4, 10:25 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> MoeBlee wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 10:13 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >> Aatu, *you're a debater who doesn't seem to have the in-good-faith spirit*
> >> in debating technical matter.
>
> > It's revealing that you choose to take your conversation with Aatu as
> > a "debate".
>
> It's hard for one to escape noticing you've rarely had any real technical
> substance in your utterances.

Rich stuff coming from a talentless buffoon such as yourself.

Marshall