On Mar 14, 6:06 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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?
You can certainly cut and paste it. What exactly are you looking for?
> 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.
1. Ad hoc meaning just thought of now? 2. What about it tells you it is ad hoc? 3. How do you know that other people believe it is ad hoc? 4. Would it matter if I had posted it 15 years ago and a dozen times inbetween? 5. Did you read the definition that I gave and repeated with the link I just gave you? 6. Did you read the FOM discussion of some of the results I mention here? 7. What do you think of someone who would make disparaging remarks about something they knew nothing about - and
> Mentioning some VAGUE REFERENCE about MODUS PONENS used in REAL FORMAL > SYSTEMS by just making jokes is NOT substitution for CBL > functionality.
Did you read the list of theorems?
> 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.
Then why did the authors have to change it after I pointed out the flaw?
> ********** > > Though not complete in any sense, this is the > SMALLEST FORMAL SYSTEM possible - 12 lines of PROLOG.
How do you know that is the smallest possible?
I can tell you plenty of smaller ones.
> tru(t). > not(f). > and(X,Y) :- tru(X),tru(Y). > and(X,not(Y)) :- tru(X),not(Y). > and(not(X),Y) :- not(X),tru(Y). > and(not(X),not(Y)) :- not(X),not(Y). > even(0). > not(and( even(X) , not(even(s(s(X)))) )). > e(A, evens) :- tru(even(A)). > tru(even(X)) :- even(X). > tru(e(A,S)) :- e(A,S). > tru(R) :- not(and(L,not(R))) , tru(L). > ************************** > > 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 )). > > YES > > [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.
How could you conceivably know that?
> LHS -> RHS > > Try THAT 1st before you attach your initials to the word LOGIC.
I just proved a bunch of purported proofs wrong and the authors either changed it and proposed another answer or had no answer, and you didn't.
"R(r) is not defined so it isn't a concept."
"R(r) is not defined so you can't say (all x) R(x) . . . "
"Frege said concepts must be total functions."
People are quoting known proofs and I am finding flaws such as these, which they tacitly admit (by rewriting the failed proof or having no answer).
If I saw anyone do that, I know well that's damn good. And when I did it, Martin Davis approved and defended it.