> My presentation over the years is that it does _not_ matter > what, say, Nam, fom, Frederick, Peter, ... would do to > "specify an infinite domain", including IP (Induction Principle), > a cost will be exacted on the ability to claim we know, verify, > or otherwise prove, in FOL level or in metalogic level. > > The opponents of the presentation seem to believe that with IP > we could go as far as proving/disproving anything assertion, > except it would be just a matter of time.
I haven't seen anyone claim that, and I certainly don't.
You are the one making claims of impossibility for particular statements.
> Which sounds like > Hilbert's false paradigm of a different kind. > > That's the difference on the two sides.
Whatever you think the "two sides" are, you misrepresent some posters here.