Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: SCI.LOGIC is a STAGNANT CESS PITT of LOSERS!
Replies: 7   Last Post: Nov 17, 2012 7:44 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
INFINITY POWER

Posts: 117
Registered: 11/1/11
Re: SCI.LOGIC is a STAGNANT CESS PITT of LOSERS!
Posted: Nov 17, 2012 7:44 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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 as-yet-unproved 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




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.