Date: Apr 15, 2013 7:38 AM
Author: Alan Smaill
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224
Nam Nguyen <email@example.com> writes:
> My presentation over the years is that it does _not_ matter
> what, say, Nam, fom, Frederick, Peter, ... would do to
> "specify an infinite domain", including IP (Induction Principle),
> a cost will be exacted on the ability to claim we know, verify,
> or otherwise prove, in FOL level or in metalogic level.
> The opponents of the presentation seem to believe that with IP
> we could go as far as proving/disproving anything assertion,
> except it would be just a matter of time.
I haven't seen anyone claim that, and I certainly don't.
You are the one making claims of impossibility for particular
> Which sounds like
> Hilbert's false paradigm of a different kind.
> That's the difference on the two sides.
Whatever you think the "two sides" are, you misrepresent
some posters here.