
Re: The Invalidity of Godel's Incompleteness Work.
Posted:
Oct 19, 2013 4:08 PM


Nam Nguyen wrote: > On 19/10/2013 1:53 PM, Peter Percival wrote: >> 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, >> >> It is from your definition that I deduced that PA is incomplete >> and consistent. So if it's sound then PA is incomplete and >> consistent. Don't blame me. > > I'm not blaming anyone here (yet)! I just want to know if you now > understand the definition, before blaming or not blaming could be > proven. > > Can you confirm if you understand the definition?
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.
>>> 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.
 The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here Lincoln at Gettysburg

