Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
Replies: 38   Last Post: Nov 7, 2013 4:07 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Phil Carmody

Posts: 2,220
Registered: 12/7/04
Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
Posted: Nov 6, 2012 8:12 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Uirgil <uirgil@uirgil.ur> writes:
> In article <k7998u$4bf$1@dont-email.me>,
> "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>

> > "MoeBlee" <modemobe@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:053e3306-d116-44ba-b9b6-f53da0fb0de8@s12g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...

> > > On Nov 1, 11:06 pm, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> > >> "MoeBlee" <modem...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:ea72eb12-753a-4f3b-b774-ed12a0bc08fa@h15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

> > >> > On Nov 1, 8:24 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >

> > >> >> Case closed?
> > >>
> > >> > My suggestion would be to study the argument in a more modern
> > >> > treatment than Godel's orginal paper

> > >>
> > >> My suggestion is to read the original argument.
> > >>
> > >> Case closed, at least for now.

> > >
> > > I'm not the one having the degree of trouble understanding it as you
> > > are.

> >
> > Yet you are the one who couldn't prove his point.
> >

> > > Case open.
> >
> > You and co. are just a bunch of nut cases: another closed case.
> >
> > -LV

>
> Those who descend to ad hominems, as LV so regularly does, are
> unconsciously revealing that they are in the wrong.


I thought it was those who so regularly resort to morphing that
reveal that they know they are in the wrong? And in that regard,
you must really be suffering, according to my (newly updated)
killfile:

("Uirgil <uirgil@uirgil.ur>" -1000 nil s)
("Uergil <Uergil@uer.net>" -1000 nil s)
("Virgil <virgil" -1000 nil s)
("Virgil <Virgil@gmale.com>" -1000 nil s)
("Virgil <Virgil@com.com>" -1000 nil s)
("Virgil <virgil@comcast.net>" -1000 nil s)
("Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com>" -1000 nil s)

Phil
--
Regarding TSA regulations:
How are four small bottles of liquid different from one large bottle?
Because four bottles can hold the components of a binary liquid explosive,
whereas one big bottle can't. -- camperdave responding to MacAndrew on /.


Date Subject Author
10/29/12
Read Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
LudovicoVan
10/29/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
MoeBlee
10/29/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
LudovicoVan
10/29/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
MoeBlee
10/29/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
LudovicoVan
10/29/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
Frederick Williams
10/29/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
MoeBlee
10/30/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
LudovicoVan
10/30/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
namducnguyen
10/30/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
MoeBlee
10/30/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
MoeBlee
10/30/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
LudovicoVan
10/30/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
MoeBlee
10/30/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
LudovicoVan
10/30/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
Rupert
10/30/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
LudovicoVan
11/1/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
LudovicoVan
11/1/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
MoeBlee
11/1/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
MoeBlee
11/2/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
LudovicoVan
11/5/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
MoeBlee
11/5/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
LudovicoVan
11/5/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
Uirgil
11/5/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
LudovicoVan
11/5/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
Uirgil
11/5/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
namducnguyen
11/5/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
Frederick Williams
11/6/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
Phil Carmody
11/6/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
Alan Smaill
11/6/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
LudovicoVan
11/6/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
Frederick Williams
11/6/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
LudovicoVan
11/6/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
Frederick Williams
11/6/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
Alan Smaill
11/6/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
LudovicoVan
11/6/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
Alan Smaill
11/7/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
LudovicoVan
11/7/12
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
Alan Smaill
11/7/13
Read Re: Goedel's 1931 proof is not purely syntactical (?)
LudovicoVan

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.