Jiri Lebl wrote: > 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.
That's silly. What does being undecidable in ZFC have to do with being non-sense?
> Aatu Koskensilta wrote: >> 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?
How should I know? In any case that's entirely irrelevant.
-- Aatu Koskensilta (firstname.lastname@example.org)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus