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.independent

Topic: How can NO LOGICIAN follow this argument??
Replies: 13   Last Post: Mar 5, 2013 11:06 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Graham Cooper

Posts: 4,275
Registered: 5/20/10
Re: How can NO LOGICIAN follow this argument??
Posted: Mar 3, 2013 2:32 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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



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.