Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > 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?
I thought that's what you said. I retract my statement where I asserted you got the point. You didn't.
A is nonsense exactly because one cannot ask for turth or false of something that's undecidable in a certain axiom system. It's subtle nonsense, but it is a nonsense question. I can ask "is CH provable in ZFC?" but not "is CH true in ZFC?" The subtlety is that the latter is what most people would informally ask when really asking for the first. Or perhaps I could ask "is CH consistent with ZFC?" Note that I did not ask about CH itself, the question is different.
> > 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.
Sarcasm is obviously lost on many people. If it is supposed to be a a counterexample to the claim that "A, not A" exhaust all possibilities, which would imply one of them must be true, and I say A is neither true nor false, then me asking if it is true or false doesn't mean I expect an answer one way or the other. Think about it. My claim is: for the given statement A, the statement "A" is not true and the statement "not A" is not true. Hence one can't just always assume A or not A is true. What's so difficult to understand about that. I understand I must spell out everything without any wordplay or sarcasm.
