fom
Posts:
1,968
Registered:
12/4/12
|
|
Re: The Invalidity of Godel's Incompleteness Work.
Posted:
Oct 19, 2013 6:14 PM
|
|
On 10/19/2013 12:39 PM, Nam Nguyen wrote:
> On 19/10/2013 11:32 AM, fom wrote:
>> On 10/19/2013 12:23 PM, Nam Nguyen wrote:
>>> On 19/10/2013 5:23 AM, Peter Percival wrote:
>>>> Nam Nguyen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What definition of "invalidity" were you referring to _here_ ? Mine?
>>>>
>>>> If you use the word "invalidity" is newsgroups called sci.logic and
>>>> sci.math then it should probably be with its usual technical
>>>> meaning. If
>>>> you use it in another sense you should probably say what sense that is
>>>> right from the start.
>>>
>>> I already did in this very thread define one or two forms of invalidity
>>> for meta statements. If you don't remember then say so and I'll try to
>>> cite the post for you.
>>>
>>> In any rate, one of the forms is that:
>>>
>>> H => C
>>>
>>> where it's impossible to know the truth value of H given all available
>>> definitions, permissible reasoning methods within the underlying logic
>>> framework [FOL(=) in this case.]
>>>
>>
>> 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].
>
And, the specification of "all available definitions"?
Let me remind you that everyone has asked you for a
definition of "true".
|
|
