|
|
Re: How can NO LOGICIAN follow this argument??
Posted:
Mar 3, 2013 2:32 AM
|
|
On Mar 3, 5:08 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 3, 2013 6:43:13 AM UTC+1, Graham Cooper wrote:
> > 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!
>
> No logician can follow the argument because it's incomprehensible incoherent dribble.
YES! THAT'S THE ARGUMENT!!!
> [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
|
|
