Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Matheology § 224
Replies: 6   Last Post: Apr 16, 2013 2:55 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
namducnguyen

Posts: 2,688
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: Matheology § 224
Posted: Apr 16, 2013 1:38 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 15/04/2013 5:38 AM, Alan Smaill wrote:
> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> writes:
>

>> 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.


They claimed that my claim about the relativity of truth of cGC
would be in vain because like GC, we might _one day_ compute a
counter example, hence the absolute truth value would be
established.

But such reasoning indirectly assumes _there is no statement_
_that is relativistic_ hence my allegation above.
>
> You are the one making claims of impossibility for particular
> statements.


Yes. But I don't just claim it. I do have some good evidences
and I did present a proof in the past. On the other hand, it seems
my opponents only have one thing to go by, something like: "we might
prove it one way or the other tomorrow".
>
>> 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.


Given that you seem to have opposed me I thought you might
have been on _that_ other side. But I withdraw that genuine
suspicion of mine. Though I'd like to ask you one question:
on the issue of the relativity of the truth value of cGC,
are you on my side or are you on the opposing side?

In any rate, in the interest of time, for the issue of cGC,
if you could join in the sub thread conversation with Jesse F.
Hughes that would be great: that sub thread is a "re-organized"
debate where we'd go 1-step at a time, from the very basics of
the foundation.

--
----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

NYOGEN SENZAKI
----------------------------------------------------



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.