```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 FUNCTIONonly to prove *YOU* can't do itis no different to NAIVE SPECIFYING of A FUNCTION.Just because YOU ARE ALL TOO STUPIDto program a function doesn't mean nobody else can program it.But George thinksS:  if stops(S) gosub SPROVES stops() is IMPOSSIBLEso 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 SGEORGE:  stops must be impossible!How can you even ARGUE alternatives to GODELS MODELwhen you are adamant about this??S:  if stops(S) gosub SHerc
```