On 19/10/2013 11:16 PM, fom wrote: > On 10/20/2013 12:04 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote: >> On 19/10/2013 4:30 PM, fom wrote: >> >>> >>> This is because your "collection of truths in meta level" >>> is dependent upon "all available definitions" and "all >>> permissible reasoning methods". >>> >>> You have been evasive concerning these phrases. >> >> Don't be a freaking liar. >> >> Can you in a straightforward manner let me know whether or not you >> understand my definition. >> > > Yes.
Well then why didn't you respond with a resounding Yes before when I repeatedly asked you and Peter? > > Read your definition. I repeat myself: > > >> It has to do with *available* *definitions* which have > >> been asked for an *not* *given*. > > a meta truth depends on a collection of meta truths
Apparently your "Yes" answer is wrong: you don't seem to understand my definition of "impossible to know"! (Hint: here I wasn't defining a meta truth; that's a different definition I had clearly defined before!)
> > the collection of meta truths depends on all available definitions > > the collection of meta truths depends on all permissible reasoning > > You ignore the definitions upon which the paradigm of > first-order logic with identity is grounded. > > You ignore the permissible reasoning methods upon which > the paradigm of metatheory for first-order relies.
What specific evidences of ignoring _permissible_ reasoning methods would you have against my definition, which on the surface is very general?
> > And you insult people when they ask you to repair this damage.
No I insulted people when they unjustifiably made personal attacks on me, including veiled racism attack.
-- ----------------------------------------------------- There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.