On 13/04/2013 10:41 AM, fom wrote: > On 4/13/2013 11:19 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote: >> On 12/04/2013 6:59 PM, fom wrote: >>> >>> If you try to use it in a proof concerning the >>> theory of the natural numbers written in >>> the object language, then you have to explain >>> it in the signature and your theory is no >>> longer a standard theory. >> >> I've never said what I try to prove about cGC is a FOL. >> On the contrary, I've always claimed it as a meta-proof >> about a _meta statement_ . But that should constitute that >> I use knowledge outside the understanding of FOL as a reasoning >> framework. >> > > Yes. I have been fully aware of that. > > But, when people ask for standard explanations > and definitions, you simply repeat how you > know what you are talking about and fail to > provide those answers.
I'm sorry, fom. You got to be very specific on your accusation. I thought my recent post to Peter about the truth relativity of some F' is very clear.
Perhaps, you could remind me a specific clear example where I failed to provide some answers in some way?
If you can't then it's not I who is "argumentative" (your word). > > People ask for those definitions to be substantiated > because you are using unfamiliar representations.
But I already did explain to them.
In fact, for example, even when I presented and explained that my M1 is a finite structure, one of them (Frederick) refused to this day to understand it.
So, please, don't tell me I don't explain in some ways the definitions I used that need to be defined: that's simply not a fact.
> > You defeat your own purposes by being argumentative.
I disagree. It's you, Frederick, at least who are. > > In your defense, newsgroup forums are not going > to be very sympathetic places to obtain a review > of ideas.
Thanks; I know that. I try where I can and newsgroups wouldn't be the only place. These arguments in forums though tend reflect certain validity or invalidity of certain arguments, if we know how to weed out the bad responses from the good ones.
Fwiw, sometimes though, the silence of credible posters actually is a deafening silence!
-- ---------------------------------------------------- There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.