
Re: Matheology § 224
Posted:
Apr 13, 2013 2:36 PM


On 13/04/2013 11:43 AM, fom wrote: > On 4/13/2013 12:07 PM, Nam Nguyen wrote: >> 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 metaproof >>>> 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. > > Frederick has asked you for a statement of the > signature of your language. > > You have never given it. > > Frederick has has given examples of what is > meant by a signature for a language. > > You have never given it. > > And, repeatedly, when informed of these facts, > you "repeat how you know what you are talking > about and fail to provide those answers". > > Shall I add to that this repeated crap about > "specificity"? > > What it comes down to is that you either have > something psychologically wrong or you are > just compulsively illmannered.
I thought of you as a poster who could be taken seriously but your posting is just idiotic ranting and rambling; you you were very much bordering being a liar.
In my original thread that I'm certain Frederick is aware of:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.ai.philosophy/msg/58615203416c4d7e?hl=en
Twice I clearly indicate what language I've been using in my effort about cGC:
<quote>
Arithmetic truths of the natural numbers (written in the language of arithmetic L(PA)) are supposed to be absolute, in the sense that they can NOT be undecidable, can NOT be chosen at discretion, can NOT be of the nature "it's impossible to know".
[...]
Def00: The natural numbers collectively is a language model [of L(PA)] of which the universe U is nonfinite. </quote>
So your complaint about me never letting Frederick know the language (hence its signature) I've been using, and then accusing me of being "psychologically wrong ... compulsively illmannered" is in between being pathetic and outright being a liar.
If you want to be seriously taken in this foundational debate, could I ask you to simply stop that?
  There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.
NYOGEN SENZAKI 

