
How can NO LOGICIAN follow this argument??
Posted:
Mar 3, 2013 12:43 AM


Look for the phrase CONSTRUCTASENTENCE
> [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/EXCONTRADICTIONESEQUITURQUODLIBET.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!

