
Re: Validating Natural Language Statements (and Mathematical Propositions)
Posted:
Jan 11, 2014 10:50 AM


On 1/11/2014 2:59 AM, Franz Gnaedinger wrote: > On Friday, January 10, 2014 2:00:09 PM UTC+1, Peter Olcott wrote: >> The difference is that in my case since my views are based on purely >> analytical reasoning, they will eventually be fully understood and >> accepted, or proven incorrect beyond all possible doubt. > You hide the flaws of your logic behind the ambiguities > of language instead of developing a formalism in the way > Gödel did. He already proved that you are incorrect > beyond all possible doubt. You have no formalism that > would prove him wrong. 1) This sentence can not be proven true. 2) This elephant can not be proven true.
Hypothesis: These two are analogous in that the reason they can not be proven true is that there is nothing to prove.

