> > Really Charlie your CHARADES have gone on long enough! > > > YOU CANNOT SHOW US 1 SYSTEM THAT IS INCONSISTENT > > > by the terminology you are making up. > > > ---------------- > > > If you have no USE for the word INCONSISTENT (THEORY) > > > then say so, and we can stop wasting our time discussing set > theory > > with you. > > With me? That'll be the day. > > > > > ------------- > > > WAGER: I will paypal CHARLIE BOO $25 > > > if he can prove ANY theory at all is inconsistent! > > Didn?t I say ?CBL proves Hilbert impossible.? ? > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/3bc441b51ffe6455?hl=en > > So you want a formal proof in CBL that Hilbert?s Programme is > inconsistent or some arbitrary set of typical set axioms is > inconsistent? > > C-B >
Machine parsable proof ok with you?
CBL, as far as I and anyone here can see, is a bunch of AD-HOC guidelines on reasoning about high level hypothetical meta-logic.
It is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of a Formal System.
Mentioning some VAGUE REFERENCE about MODUS PONENS used in REAL FORMAL SYSTEMS by just making jokes is NOT substitution for CBL functionality.
Hand waving away every argument for 3 weeks is NOT justification of any assertion you've made here - NOTHING you've said has been backed up COLLOQUIALLY yet alone FORMALLY.
Though not complete in any sense, this is the SMALLEST FORMAL SYSTEM possible - 12 lines of PROLOG.
by using a small subset of boolean input predicates (and, not)
You can enter this command into any PROLOG software
?- tru( e( s(s(s(s(0)))) , evens )).
[4 e EVENS] is a Theorem.
NOBODY in ANY maths department, newsgroup, book publishing house, expert software design house, university faculty lounge, high school maths class, fruit shop, hen house, dog house or Zuhair's scribble pad is going to follow one single deduction in CBL, yet alone accept it as a FORMAL PROOF.
LHS -> RHS
Try THAT 1st before you attach your initials to the word LOGIC.