On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 21:14:30 -0600, Virgil <virgil@comcast.net> wrote:
>In article <aia8c2d8ctp3s4q39bmn4qarp1easd36k1@4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 17:24:39 -0600, Virgil <virgil@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >In article <vft7c2hs1hhgjafei4cj592vjdd5puj7ah@4ax.com>, >> > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:59:42 -0600, Virgil <virgil@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >In article <jdc7c2tu596hall2rbfl1m8f1jk5knf131@4ax.com>, >> >> > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:01:31 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker" >> >> >> <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Aatu Koskensilta wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > Sentences follow from the postulates >> >> >> >(axioms) of a theory or they don't, assuming the sentence is well >> >> >> >formed >> >> >> >in the theory. >> >> >> >> >> >> Which sentence doesn't strike me as very well formed at all. >> >> > >> >> >It is sufficiently 'well formed' to convey its intended meaning, in >> >> >contrast to Zick's, which are often ill formed to conceal that they >> >> >convey no meaning. >> >> >> >> It is sufficiently well formed to convey its lack of form. >> > >> >That Zick claims to finds it difficult to understand does not make it >> >difficult to understand. >> >> It just makes it impossible to be true. > >On the contrary, except to those who reject the excluded middle, it is >impossible claim it anything else, it being esssentially of the form >"P or not P".
