-In article <email@example.com>, -james dolan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: -@ilias kastanas writes: -@ -@-In article <email@example.com>, -@-james dolan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: -@->ilias kastanas writes: -@-> -@->- His dream was first, a precise symbolic language ("characteristica -@->- universalis") to express everything in science 'and philosophy' (it is -@->- not clear how _wide_ this was to be) and second, a computational method -@->- ("calculus ratiocinator") to resolve statements in that language. I -@->- don't remember whether he actually envisaged a machine doing the work. -@->- I recall the quote that instead of quarrels and squabbles people would -@->- say "Calculemus". -@->- -@->- Limited to mathematics, the dream did come true; -@-> -@-> -@-> -@->of course it did _not_ come true. as you well know it was destroyed -@->by (among others) goedel. -@- -@- -@- -@- It did come true. You are confusing Goedel Incompleteness with -@- Goedel Completeness. -@ -@ -@ -@no i am not. you are speaking total nonsense. -@ - - - No, just partial nonsense: obviously you cannot confuse what - you don't know. - - The dream came true, as you will see if you learn the Completeness - Thm. And if you ever shed your jejune rudeness you might even find someone - to discuss it with.
i think it's a much less strained reading of leibniz's words that leibniz was asking for a decision procedure for deciding the truth of statements in the language, than whatever it is you're claiming leibniz meant.
i know that you understand the completeness theorem and the incompleteness theorem as well as i do, so i can't suggest with a straight face that it is some misunderstanding of them on your part that explains why you're continuing to speak total nonsense. perhaps it is some sort of linguistic difficulty you have that might explain it.