On Aug 2, 7:14 pm, Gc <Gcut...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 30 heinä, 00:52, thirdmer...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Jul 22, 5:08 am, Gc <Gcut...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 21 heinä, 17:05, thirdmer...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > > I recently finshed reading a book about Godel's Incompleteness > > > > Theorem, called the Shackles of Conviction by James R Meyer and I was > > > > knocked sideways by it. although it is a novel, it explains Godel's > > > > proof better than any other explanation I have ever seen. But the > > > > astonishing thing is that the book also pinpoints exactly where there > > > > is a flaw in the proof. > > > > > Yes, like you, I thought that Meyer had to be wrong. So I looked at > > > > his websitewww.jamesrmeyer.comandfoundafully technical paper on > > > > Godel's theorem. I couldn't see anything wrong with Meyer's paper and > > > > I have completly changed my opinion on Godel's proof. Meyer's stuff is > > > > not the ramblings of some freak - he really knows Godel's proof inside > > > > out. > > > > > Meyer says that no-one has been able to find an error in his paper. I > > > > showed it to a couple of friends and they couldn't see anything wrong > > > > with Meyer's argument either. So is there anyone there who can find > > > > anything wrong with Meyer's argument? And if no-one can find anything > > > > wrong with Meyer's argument, doesn't that mean that he is right and > > > > Godel was wrong? > > > > No. His paper seems very confused. He talks a lot about "number > > > theoretic relations" and thinks that "a number theoretic relation" > > > means a expression of the language. > > > I don't know what you mean. Are you sure it isn't you that is > > confused? If you think that there is something specifically wrong with > > his paper why don't you point out where exactlly it is wrong? And are > > you saying that any number theoretic relation is not an expression in > > some language? If it's not, how can it have any meaning in any > > langauge? > > Relations are represented in the language by predicates. Relations are > in the models, they are intepretations of the language. The author of > that paper thinks that gödel meant by number theoretic relations > expressions of the language and he builds his critism on that.
Are you trying to say that number theoretic relations are not expressions of any language? That they are meaningless squiggles that we can have no meaningful discussion about? That's absurd. They have to be expressions of some language. That is what Meyer talks about.
Why does everyone dismiss Meyer with a few general sentences that mean nothing, when if Meyer is so mistaken, why can't you point out exactly where he is wrong? Meyer is in a completely different level to idiots like Colin Dean, where people have easily pointed out the actual errors in Colin Dean's argument. Why can they not do the same for Meyer? Is it because they can't?
