
Re: The Invalidity of Godel's Incompleteness Work.
Posted:
Oct 19, 2013 4:06 PM


Nam Nguyen wrote: > 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 PAcGC or PA~cGC, so we don't know if >>>>> "PAcGC" >>>>> 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 DEFINITIONquestion 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 PAcGC nor PA~cGC. You >>>>> should publish your proof. And stop claiming that Gödel's >>>>> incompleteness theorem is invalid, because if neither PAcGC nor >>>>> PA~cGC, then that is an example of incompleteness. >>>>> >>>>> Also if you know that neither PAcGC 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"
It is from your definition of "impossible to know" that I deduce that you can prove that neither PAcGC nor PA~cGC. Hence you have proved Gödel's incompleteness theorem and you have proved PA is consistent. So if I understood your definition then you are wrong about Gödel's incompleteness theorem being invalid and you are wrong about PA not being provably consistent.
> 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. >
 The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here Lincoln at Gettysburg

