On 19/10/2013 1:24 PM, Nam Nguyen wrote: > On 19/10/2013 12:53 PM, Peter Percival wrote: >> Nam Nguyen wrote: >>> On 19/10/2013 12:10 PM, Peter Percival wrote: >>>> Nam Nguyen wrote: >>>>> On 19/10/2013 11:32 AM, fom wrote: >>>> >>>>>> And, the meaning of "impossible to know"? >>>>> >>>>> Right there: right in front of you. >>>>> >>>>> _A meta truth_ is said to be impossible to know if it's not in the >>>>> collection of meta truths, resulting from all available definitions, >>>>> permissible reasoning methods, within the underlying logic framework >>>>> [FOL(=) in this case]. >>>> >>>> We don't yet know if PA|-cGC or PA|-~cGC, so we don't know if "PA|-cGC" >>>> or "PA|-~cGC" is in the collection of meta truths. So we don't know if >>>> it's impossible to know cGC (or ~cGC). Why, then, do you claim that >>>> it's impossible to know cGC (or ~cGC)? > > "Fom" asked me a very specific DEFINITION-question and I've given a very > specific answer to his question. > > Until you and fom let me know if this definition is understood by > you both, I'm not answering further to your endless postings resulted > from _your not understanding my definition_ . > > So, here it is again: > > > _Do you first understand the definition itself_ ? > > > > Would you please confirm you now do or still don't? Thanks. > >>>> >>>> Do you know that both cGC and ~cGC are not in the collection of meta >>>> truths? If so you must know that neither PA|-cGC nor PA|-~cGC. You >>>> should publish your proof. And stop claiming that Gödel's >>>> incompleteness theorem is invalid, because if neither PA|-cGC nor >>>> PA|-~cGC, then that is an example of incompleteness. >>>> >>>> Also if you know that neither PA|-cGC nor PA|-~cGC, then you've proved >>>> PA consistent. So you should stop claiming that its consistency is >>>> unprovable. >>> >>> _Do you first understand the definition itself_ ? >>> >>> Would you please confirm you now do or still don't? Thanks. >> >> If I've understood it (the definition of "impossible to know") then my >> argument above is valid. If it's valid then you're wrong about Gödel. >> So you should be careful about what you ask to be confirmed. >> >> You have been caught out in a contradiction. Now, what's it to be: >> i) you are too dim to recognize it, >> ii) you are too dishonest to recognize it, > > You forgot another possibility: > > You're too intellectually coward to admit my definition is sound, > which would lead to the fact you've been so stupid in this debate. > >> iii) you admit that your claims about cGC and Gödel are wrong? >> Not iii) I bet.
I'll give you a breathing room: let me know if you understand my definition of "impossible to know" here in this context; and if you do understand, I'll fully respond to your quest about cGC above ( _but only per your post shown above_ ).
The choice is yours.
-- ----------------------------------------------------- There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.