Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.



Re: SCI.LOGIC is a STAGNANT CESS PITT of LOSERS!
Posted:
Nov 17, 2012 7:44 PM


On Nov 18, 10:29 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote: > > On Nov 18, 4:24 am, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com> > > > How do you show that some formula (phi, let's say) is not derivable > > > from > > > the axioms? > > On Nov 17, 4:36 pm, Hercules ofZeus <herc.is.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > You start with a naive specification of DERIVE(THEOREM) > > > You gave a rudimentary description of the method at one point, see how > > you go! > > You go on infintely searching for a derivation WITHOUT EVER FINDING > ONE, is what happens, > MOST of the time. So you ALMOST NEVER GIVE THE CORRECT ANSWER that > "phi is not derivable from the axioms". > You only manage to confirm that phi is not derivable by (e.g.) proving/ > deriving ~phi (when ~phi happens to be derivable), > OR BY CONSTRUCTING A MODEL OF Axioms/\~phi IN A STRONGER MODEL > CONSTRUCTION LANGUAGE. > That is HARDLY merely "a naive specification of DERIVE(THEOREM)". > "THEOREM" in the above IS A PARAMETER, in any case, so what you must > REALLY write is NOT merely a specification, > BUT AN *IMPLEMENTATION* of a specification, for "Derive(_)". And you > can't just derive "THEOREM" *by*itself*  you have > to derive it FROM something  from some AXIOMS. > There are SOME things that can be derived from no axioms (LIKE THE > DENIAL OF RUSSELL'S PARADOX) > but for the most part those are considered ALREADY known. Except of > course for the ones that are conjunctions > of axioms with an asyetunproved theorem (or its denial). >
WRITING A FUNCTION or DEFINING A FUNCTION only to prove *YOU* can't do it
is no different to NAIVE SPECIFYING of A FUNCTION.
Just because YOU ARE ALL TOO STUPID
to program a function doesn't mean nobody else can program it.
But George thinks
S: if stops(S) gosub S
PROVES stops() is IMPOSSIBLE
so what use is it talking sense about feasibility of DERIVE() into MORON GEORGE??
Do you have ANY IDEA HOW RETARDED THIS PROOF YOU BELIEVE IS???
S: if stops(S) gosub S
GEORGE: stops must be impossible!
How can you even ARGUE alternatives to GODELS MODEL when you are adamant about this??
S: if stops(S) gosub S
Herc



