Date: Nov 17, 2012 7:26 PM Author: Graham Cooper Subject: Re: SCI.LOGIC is a STAGNANT CESS PITT of LOSERS! On Nov 18, 10:10 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

> On Nov 17, 4:34 pm, Hercules ofZeus <herc.is.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> > > > *IF* you had any credible mathematical capacity,

> > > > you would ACKNOWLEDGE THE ARGUMENT FIRST.

>

> > > I*DID* acknowledge your argument first. *I*WAS* talking about YOUR

> > > argument IN YOUR terms.

>

> > NO YOU DIDN'T.

>

> Yes, I did.

>

No you missed the ARGUMENT for the LOGIC EXAMPLE.

The ARGUMENT is that YOUR THEORY is SELF-CONSISTENT.

You have NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED that.

If you DID acknowledge that it would then PROVE that.

You resort to PROOF BY LITERATURE.

>

> > You used a DEBATING TECHNIQUE

>

> No, I didn't use any debating techniques.

> I used some basic results of model theory

> and some basic results about first-order logic.

> It's a shame you spend this much time in this room GIVEN THAT YOU

> DON'T KNOW these basic results,

> let alone understand them.

>

NO YOU LIED, FED ME A CARROT that the LOGIC IS COMPLETE.

then changed your mind.

>

> > The ARGUMENT you ALWAYS IGNORE

>

> > is that CLOSED LOGIC IS CLOSED

>

> I can't ignore an argument THAT YOU HAVEN'T MADE.

> YOU were talking about a model showing that a theory doesn't decide a

> sentence.

> THAT HAPPENS.

>

You DISMISSED the claim automatically that

THIS IS NOT TRUE IN THAT

you SAID the above is BONA FIDE true and NECESSARY for MATHS.

>

> > I did 2 YEARS of this stuff at UNI

>

> > They DELIBERATELY left out ZFC in the I.T. degree and for good reason.

>

> If you didn't do ZFC then you did I.T. *INSTEAD*OF*LOGIC*, DUMBASS.

>

RUBBISH!

We did 10 UNITS on LOGIC and PROVERS.

ZFC was OMMITED because THEY KNEW IT WAS SH$T

>

> > They even used a SPECIFICATION LANGUAGE called Z to cover the omission

> > of ZFC from I.T. degrees.

>

> Your specificatrion language DOES NOT "cover the omission of ZFC" from

> I.T.

IT STARTED WITH A "Z" you moron.

> degrees. ZFC in any case CAN'T be omitted from I.T. degrees BECAUSE

> IT IS NOT PART OF I.T. TO BEGIN WITH!

> ZFC HAS AN AXIOM OF INIFNITY! EVERYTHING IN I.T. HAS TO DEAL WITH

> *FINITE* RESOURCES!!

>

> You can't presume you know anything about logic (beyond basic

> propositional stuff for If-statements in code)

MY CODE ALREADY DOES MODUS PONENS

AND RESOLUTION

Proof Methods you said don't even exist as axioms in a theory.

>

> if your only contact with a university is a 2-yr I.T. program.

> In America we call that community college. It doesn't even RISE to

> the level of uni. anything.

> Not that uni. is terribly RELEVANT to I.T. in America any more. Lots

> of people get very good at what they do without bothering with a

> university at all.

>

You are a stupid moron. LOGIC was not part of 3rd year.

YOU are a LYING SCUM who only knows how to QUOTE TEXT BOOKS

You FAIL TO ADDRESS ANY POINT AND DIVERT EVERY CONVERSATION WITH

PURILE BULLSHIT ABOUT NOTHING.

YOU PROVED YOU ARE INCOMPETENT WITH GODEL STAEMENTS.

AND YOU WENT THE EXTRA MILE.

WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER

HOW DO YOU EVALUATE AN UN-COUNTABLE CHOICE FUNCTION??

this gets more BIZARRE the more and more GEORGE LIES

What are you using to EVALUATE uncountable many programs?

YOUR ZFC AXIOM YOU MORON!

1 FUNCTION FOR EVERY 1 SET

HOW YOU YOU RUN AN UNCOUNTABLE FUNCTION.

Your LOGIC THEORY IS 100% CONTRIVED BULLSHIT

and it KEEPS ON SPEWING BECAUSE

you are a little ARGUMENTATIVE TURD

WHO CANNOT ADDRESS A SINGLE POINT.

Herc