On 10/20/2013 1:25 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote: > 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. >
Do you not see the conditional in your statement?
"...is said to be impossible to know *if* it's not in the collection..."
Hence the meaning of the statement relies on the other part of the statement to which I referred.
And, Peter and I have continually asked about definitions and reasoning methods in our pursuit of the meanings ambiguously floating around this so-called "definition".