On 23 Jul 2006 12:14:22 -0700, "Jiri Lebl" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Aatu Koskensilta wrote: >> Jiri Lebl wrote: >> > Good thing you admit it. Yes you are very much mistaken. For example >> > take A be the statement: "Is P(N) = aleph_1 true in ZFC". >> >> That's a question, and non-sense at that; sentences aren't true or false >> in theories. > >That's EXACTLY the point. It's true in one model of ZFC and false in >another model of ZFC. Therefore A is nonsense, even though it does >seem well formed. Most definately neither "A" nor "not A" is true. I >could have used the statement "Banana question red appricot three" >which also is neither true nor false. So there must be something more >to state then just "A, not A" always exhaust all possibilities. >Obviously it there are assumptions of what A is. > >> Zick is no doubt mistaken about many things, but your >> rebuttal of his ideas is itself rather confused. The continuum >> hypothesis does not provide an example of an A such that "A, not A" do >> not exhaust all possibilities. > >So it is true? or it is false?