|
|
How can NO LOGICIAN follow this argument??
Posted:
Mar 3, 2013 12:43 AM
|
|
Look for the phrase CONSTRUCT-A-SENTENCE
> [DARYL]
> Fix a coding for arithmetic, that is, a way to associate a unique
> natural number with each statement of arithmetic. In terms of this
> coding, a truth predicate Tr(x) is a formula with the following
> property: For any statement S in the language of arithmetic,
> Tr(#S) <-> S
> holds (where #S means the natural number coding the sentence S).
> If Tr(x) is a formula of arithmetic, then using techniques
> developed by Godel, we can construct a sentence L such that
> L <-> ~Tr(#L)
>
> [JESSE]
> Goedel *explicitly* constructed a formula P and showed
> that both (1) and (2) were true of P.
[HERC]
"We can construct a formula"
/\
||
\/
"We can construct *ANY* formula"
T |- any formula
ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet
from a contradiction, anything follows
http://blockprolog.com/EX-CONTRADICTIONE-SEQUITUR-QUODLIBET.png
-----------------
Godel and Tarski proofs were PRE AXIOMATIC SET THEORY!
Herc
--
TOM: You can't agree with this!
BETTY: That's right!
PAMMY: I don't agree!
THE WOMEN'S INCOMPREHENSION THEORY!
|
|
