On Mar 14, 11:44 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 15, 11:58 am, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > C-B > > > > 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. > > > Wow. > > > 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. > > > Go back under your rock. > > > C-B > > Charlie you know what an INCONSISTENT SYSTEM IS? > > YOU! > > I'm not joking, somewhere along the line you got your wires crossed > and every sentence you output you think is PROVABLY TRUE but at the > heart of all your reasoning somewhere there is a CBL theorem F and a > CBL theorem ~F that are both true in your fantasy logical world. > > This is causing EX-CONTRADICTION-SEQUITUR-QUODLIBET > > inside your mind... you are BLOWING SMOKE! > > CBL is not anything usable because CBL is just YOUR BRAIN! > > Everyone says CHARLIE BOO IS WRONG in every single reply to you, but > you read every reply as everyone saying you are right, please do go > on! > > There is so much nonsense in your head, but you have no clue what the > basic meanings of formula, string, true, false, proof, deduction, > imply, theory, theorem actually mean! > > Yet alone language, parse, formal, consistent, meta-mathematics, set > theory, axiom, function, predicate...
Can you substantiate anything of what you say?
I have posted to the highly moderated forum Foundations of Mathematics (FOM) 43 times - every one of them approved by Martin Davis.
How do you spell "idiot"?
> You are using the street talk slang of clearly defined mathematical > terms in a vain effort to twist them around and disprove what everyone > else is saying. > > G/L with CBL, but while it is only YOU making deductions via the rules > of CBL it is not a usable framework for anyone else, it merely assists > you in saying "I PROVED IT IN CBL SO NA". > > HINT: Get a spreadsheet to go from 1 CBL statement to another! > > Herc > --www.BLoCKPROLOG.com