The Math Forum

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

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View  
Peter Olcott

Posts: 721
Registered: 6/16/12
Re: Truth behind Paradox of Self Reference
Posted: Aug 22, 2014 2:41 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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, years-long. 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 (well-formed-formulas)!

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!

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.