Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Truth behind Paradox of Self Reference
Replies:
1
Last Post:
Aug 22, 2014 2:41 PM




Re: Truth behind Paradox of Self Reference
Posted:
Aug 22, 2014 2:41 PM


On 8/22/2014 11:23 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote: > On 22/08/2014 9:18 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote: >> On 22/08/2014 8:26 AM, James Burns wrote: >>> [sci.lang, comp.theory removed] >>> >>> >>> On 8/22/2014 9:49 AM, Peter Olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/22/2014 8:23 AM, Peter Percival wrote: >>>>> Peter Olcott wrote: >>> >>>>>> Why don't you [Nam] try very hard to say exactly and precisely >>>>>> what you mean and mean exactly and precisely what you say? >>>>>> >>>>>> I know that this is a very difficult thing to do. Ernest Hemingway >>>>>> rewrote everything he said twenty times, and then published it >>>>>> after it had been very thoroughly checked over. >>>>> >>>>> In another (sci.logic) thread James Burns wrote >>>>> >>>>> The only answer that makes sense to me is that you [Nam] are >>>>> _profoundly_ ignorant of mathematics and logic, and that >>>>> you are trying to win a mathematical argument by bluffing. >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) Nam is no good at bluffing >>>>> either. >>>> >>>> I would chalk it up to an honest mistake of not saying exactly and >>>> precisely what he meant, I have done this myself quite often, most >>>> people do this quite often. >>> >>> You have joined a long line of posters who have asked Nam to >>> explain what he means, yearslong. All but a few have given up. >>> Welcome. >> >> The fellowship of crank and trolls these posts are about! > > Seriously. > > When I said of a collection of meta assertions _written in natural_ > _language_ they'd interpret as a collection of FOL syntactical string > objects known as wff's (wellformedformulas)! >
Makes perfect sense to me, and apparently also to Richard Montague of Montague Grammar.
> When I said we're assuming the underlying reasoning _framework_ known > as the First Order Logic with equality _framework_ denoted by the meta > level notation "FOL(=)", somehow they'd interpret that as the _formal_ > _system_ of which the only axioms are logical ones of the form x=x! > > Somehow _they repeatedly failed_ to know the difference between the > phrase "reasoning framework" and "formal system"! > > What can I say? Genuine cranks and trolls are really genuine in their > being so! > >



