
Re: The Invalidity of Godel's Incompleteness Work.
Posted:
Oct 19, 2013 5:32 PM


On 19/10/2013 3:24 PM, Peter Percival wrote: > Nam Nguyen wrote: > >> I've repeatedly asked you first if you understand my definition. > > Surely you wouldn't wilful give an obscure definition? The point of a > definition is to clarify meaning, isn't it? From your definition > > _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]. > > this follows:
How the hell anything would follow from my definition if it is "poor English" ( _your words_ )? > > 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)? > > 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 understand  or not understand  my definition of "impossible to know" here (above)?
  There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.
NYOGEN SENZAKI

