fom
Posts:
1,968
Registered:
12/4/12


Re: The Invalidity of Godel's Incompleteness Work.
Posted:
Oct 19, 2013 6:31 PM


On 10/19/2013 1:15 PM, 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)? >> >> 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. >
In a corner? Follow WM's lead... ask a question?

