Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.



Re: Matheology § 224
Posted:
Apr 16, 2013 1:38 AM


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 "reorganized" debate where we'd go 1step at a time, from the very basics of the foundation.
  There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.
NYOGEN SENZAKI 



