On 19/10/2013 11:51 PM, fom wrote: > On 10/20/2013 12:04 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote: >> >> If you don't confirm, as you both haven't, then don't be a pathetic >> liar citing "available"-excuse here: you've never confirmed so I >> couldn't know if you didn't understand the definition, let alone >> knowing "available" would stand in the way of your understanding >> my definition. >> >> If you and Peter didn't understand my definition because of the >> word "available", _why the hell didn't your guys simply answer_ >> _my request_ with something like "No, I don't understand your >> definition. Would you elaborate more"? >> > > Because both Peter and I are aware that there are specific > logics which address words like "impossible" and "know". > > We have explained that to you repeatedly at the expense of > our own time, only to be ignored and insulted. > > Since you seem to enjoy an impenetrable constitution > with regard to any ability to comprehend these facts, > I have moved on to the word "available". I have gone > back to the same questions that I had been asking before. > There had been no need to worry about your definition > because it has no substance.
> Moreover, asking you to > elaborate on anything only leads to questions being > responded to with questions and other evasive techniques.
You're a liar, fom. This is excerpted from the conversation:
fom asked Nam:
>>> And, the meaning of "impossible to know"?
to which Nam directly respond:
>> >> 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]. > > Do you, fom, now understand my definition for the phrase "impossible > to know" in this context? > > Would you be able to confirm?
I only asked you if you'd understand a definition that you yourself had challenged me to come up. What exactly did you find evasive in my definition and asking you to confirm above?
For the record, if
"resulting from all available definitions, permissible reasoning methods"
is so difficult for you to comprehend, you could easily read that as:
"resulting from [all available] definitions, permissible reasoning methods"
where "[all available]" is just an optional helping annotation!
If you don't understand such a simple expression in natural language (English) then I'm very sorry that you should disengage from my thread: there's not much I could help you, other than suggesting to you textbooks such as Shoenfield's would have a lot of similar technical but English expressions too.
Again, if you don't understand the basic definitions of concepts I'd use against Godel's work, please disengage from thread.
-- ----------------------------------------------------- There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.