'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: MoeBlee on 5 Mar 2010 12:38

On Mar 3, 11:30 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote:
> MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> writes:
> > P.S. And note that now you're arguing the OPPOSITE of your earlier
> > challenge against the claim that Godel's proof can be formalized.
>
> My (very tentative) impression is that Nam didn't intend to argue this
> opposite challenge. Rather, he is, rather bafflingly, arguing those who
> assert that Gödel's proof wasn't a formal proof but can be formalized
> are contradicting themselves.

Right, my point (though apparently not clear) was that in doing that
he unwittingly endorsed the opposite of his original contention. The
contradiction is not yours (or mine) but his.

> This is a sound line of thought on the
> bizarre and pointless definition of formal proof he gave earlier.

I've not counted whatever that definition may be, since he's already
been told a million times what a formal proof is.

MoeBlee

From: MoeBlee on 5 Mar 2010 12:44

On Mar 4, 10:09 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
> > MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >> P.S. And note that now you're arguing the OPPOSITE of your earlier
> >> challenge against the claim that Godel's proof can be formalized.
>
> > My (very tentative) impression is that Nam didn't intend to argue this
> > opposite challenge.
>
> Which seems to tentatively mean MoeBlee didn't quite know what he
> was noting about here. [To me he didn't know what he was saying here].

Not at all. See my reply to Aatu.

> > Rather, he is, rather bafflingly, arguing those who
> > assert that Gödel's proof wasn't a formal proof but can be formalized
> > are contradicting themselves. This is a sound line of thought on the
> > bizarre and pointless definition of formal proof he gave earlier.
>
> I think you meant the passage I had earlier said:
>
> >> if there's a formal system where what he asserted is a theorem, then
> >> his proof is a formal proof. If not then his proof isn't. It's that's
> >> straight forward which doesn't require explanation on thing such as
> >> "ordinary mathematical proof", as you said.
>
> Why is that definition of a _formal proof_ "bizarre and pointless"?
> Or you just interjected into the debate baseless subjective comments
> whenever you feel pleased?

The definition of a formal proof has been explained to you already.

> Now, Shoenfield said "a formal system is the syntactical part of an axiom
> system" and then he said one of the only 3 components of this syntactical
> part is the rules of inference where and only where _formal system proofs_
> can be had. This is what he said:
>
> "We need the third part of a formal system which will enable us to _conclude_
> _theorems from the axioms_. This is provided by the rules of inference..."
>
> [The highlight are mine].
>
> My definition of _formal proof_ is basically just a repeat of Shoenfield's
> definition of _formal system proof_.

Whatever your definition of 'formal proof', from ordinary definitions
of 'formal proof' it doe not follow that "if there's a formal system
where what he asserted is a theorem, then his proof is a formal
proof", which is bizarre and pointless, just as Aatu said it is.

> Are you saying Shoenfield's definition
> here is "bizarre and pointless"?

No, he's not.

> The only reason I could think of why you
> had such very strange comment is perhaps you often flip-flop on the semantics
> of some technical terminologies, such as when you said "formalized" you
> actually meant "in-formalized" and in such case then yes what isn't a
> formal proof can be an "in-formalized" proof.

That all has to do with what you personally can think of. Aside from
that, it's bizarre and pointless in regard to anything Aatu said.

> But for crying out loud, why on Earth would one want flip the semantics
> of "formalized" into "in-formalized"?

Why on earth don't you just LISTEN to what people say to you?

MoeBlee

From: MoeBlee on 5 Mar 2010 12:47

On Mar 4, 11:21 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> 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'.

Since you seem not to avail of professional help, by default, everyday
attempts to reason with you and to dissuade you of your bizarre
notions take some aspect of hope (even if in vain) for your recovery.

MoeBlee

From: MoeBlee on 5 Mar 2010 12:49

On Mar 4, 11:25 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.

You are literally MERELY one, and not on account of any talent for
noticing ACTUAL things.

MoeBlee

From: MoeBlee on 5 Mar 2010 12:51

On Mar 5, 3:18 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2:01 am, Alan Smaill <sma...(a)SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> > Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> writes:
> > > 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?
>
> > Because the notions of "truth" and "validity" are not beyond dispute, and
> > maybe we/you/I have got those wrong.
>
> On usenet, nothing is beyond dispute. For example, try to get
> Nam to agree that the sky is blue. He has contested this in
> the past, sometimes with the argument that aliens might use
> the word "blue" to mean red. He also has contested the fact
> that formulas in the language of arithmetic are either true or false.

He denies it is apparent that

000

is a different string of characters from

001

(or whatever the actual example I used).

MoeBlee