Date: Nov 17, 2012 7:44 PM
Author: INFINITY POWER
Subject: Re: SCI.LOGIC is a STAGNANT CESS PITT of LOSERS!
On Nov 18, 10:29 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

> > On Nov 18, 4:24 am, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>

> > > How do you show that some formula (phi, let's say) is not derivable

> > > from

> > > the axioms?

>

> On Nov 17, 4:36 pm, Hercules ofZeus <herc.is.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> > You start with a naive specification of DERIVE(THEOREM)

>

> > You gave a rudimentary description of the method at one point, see how

> > you go!

>

> You go on infintely searching for a derivation WITHOUT EVER FINDING

> ONE, is what happens,

> MOST of the time. So you ALMOST NEVER GIVE THE CORRECT ANSWER that

> "phi is not derivable from the axioms".

> You only manage to confirm that phi is not derivable by (e.g.) proving/

> deriving ~phi (when ~phi happens to be derivable),

> OR BY CONSTRUCTING A MODEL OF Axioms/\~phi IN A STRONGER MODEL-

> CONSTRUCTION LANGUAGE.

> That is HARDLY merely "a naive specification of DERIVE(THEOREM)".

> "THEOREM" in the above IS A PARAMETER, in any case, so what you must

> REALLY write is NOT merely a specification,

> BUT AN *IMPLEMENTATION* of a specification, for "Derive(_)". And you

> can't just derive "THEOREM" *by*itself* -- you have

> to derive it FROM something -- from some AXIOMS.

> There are SOME things that can be derived from no axioms (LIKE THE

> DENIAL OF RUSSELL'S PARADOX)

> but for the most part those are considered ALREADY known. Except of

> course for the ones that are conjunctions

> of axioms with an as-yet-unproved theorem (or its denial).

>

WRITING A FUNCTION or DEFINING A FUNCTION

only to prove *YOU* can't do it

is no different to NAIVE SPECIFYING of A FUNCTION.

Just because YOU ARE ALL TOO STUPID

to program a function doesn't mean nobody else can program it.

But George thinks

S: if stops(S) gosub S

PROVES stops() is IMPOSSIBLE

so what use is it talking sense about feasibility of DERIVE() into MORON

GEORGE??

Do you have ANY IDEA HOW RETARDED THIS PROOF YOU BELIEVE IS???

S: if stops(S) gosub S

GEORGE: stops must be impossible!

How can you even ARGUE alternatives to GODELS MODEL

when you are adamant about this??

S: if stops(S) gosub S

Herc