Nam Nguyen wrote: > On 24/08/2013 9:47 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Nam Nguyen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: >> <snip> >>> Do you speak for everyone (some of whom might be at professor level) >>> who might read the conversations here? >> >> Why the reverence for status? What is the significance to you of people >> who are at "professor level"? I have been blown away by the shear >> mental power of some professors (John Conway springs to mind) and been >> left completely unimpressed by others. It's not an infallible stamp of >> authority. > > You seem to have misunderstood my intention: I've never reasoned > _solely_ based on the status. > > It's that Peter's argument is based on his _speaking for others_ who > might be at professor status, meaning they're most likely know > more about certain observed conversation than Peter himself. > > Apparently to Peter speaking for people (who might be in better > technical position than he) is simply just a joke, amusing to him. > > Usually speaking-for-others arguments are weak, to say the least. >
The scope of my technical knowledge is extremely limited; nevertheless I feel confident that none of the people named by you up-thread would endorse what you are claiming. Note that if you would only prove your claims nobody would be speculating about what others might endorse. Since you cannot even frame coherent definitions of the concepts you need (or think you need), there is little prospect of you proving anything, or getting anyone else (named up-stream or not) to agree that you have proved anything. To begin at the beginning, what does it mean to say "The truth value of <any statement of your choosing in the language of arithmetic> is unknowable"? What does "unknowable" mean in the context of truth values of statements of arithmetic? What formal (or even informal) properties does this "unknowable" have? There are (what one might call) "logics of 'know'", usually they are called epistemic logics. How does epistemic logic interact with formal arithmetic?
A recent indication of the depth of your stupidity is your claim that Gödel's system P has primitive signs other than those the man himself listed. That's got nothing to do with technical knowledge, it's a simple matter of reading comprehension.
-- Sorrow in all lands, and grievous omens. Great anger in the dragon of the hills, And silent now the earth's green oracles That will not speak again of innocence. David Sutton -- Geomancies