
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 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! > > 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

