
Re: I Bet $25 to your $1 (PayPal) That You Can’t P rove Naive Set Theory Inconsistent
Posted:
Mar 14, 2013 11:44 PM


On Mar 15, 11:58 am, CharlieBoo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 14, 6:06 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Really Charlie your CHARADES have gone on long enough! > > > > > YOU CANNOT SHOW US 1 SYSTEM THAT IS INCONSISTENT > > > > > by the terminology you are making up. > > > > >  > > > > > If you have no USE for the word INCONSISTENT (THEORY) > > > > > then say so, and we can stop wasting our time discussing set > > > theory > > > > with you. > > > > With me? That'll be the day. > > > > >  > > > > > WAGER: I will paypal CHARLIE BOO $25 > > > > > if he can prove ANY theory at all is inconsistent! > > > > Didn?t I say ?CBL proves Hilbert impossible.? ? > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/3bc441b51ffe6455?hl=en > > > > So you want a formal proof in CBL that Hilbert?s Programme is > > > inconsistent or some arbitrary set of typical set axioms is > > > inconsistent? > > > > CB > > > Machine parsable proof ok with you? > > You can certainly cut and paste it. What exactly are you looking for? > > > CBL, as far as I and anyone here can see, > > is a bunch of ADHOC guidelines on reasoning > > about high level hypothetical metalogic. > > > It is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of a Formal System. > > 1. Ad hoc meaning just thought of now? > 2. What about it tells you it is ad hoc? > 3. How do you know that other people believe it is ad hoc? > 4. Would it matter if I had posted it 15 years ago and a dozen times > inbetween? > 5. Did you read the definition that I gave and repeated with the link > I just gave you? > 6. Did you read the FOM discussion of some of the results I mention > here? > 7. What do you think of someone who would make disparaging remarks > about something they knew nothing about  and > > CB > > > Mentioning some VAGUE REFERENCE about MODUS PONENS used in REAL > FORMAL > > SYSTEMS by just making jokes is NOT substitution for CBL > > functionality. > > Did you read the list of theorems? > > > Hand waving away every argument for 3 weeks is NOT justification of > > any assertion you've made here  NOTHING you've said has been > backed > > up COLLOQUIALLY yet alone FORMALLY. > > Then why did the authors have to change it after I pointed out the > flaw? > > > ********** > > > Though not complete in any sense, this is the > > > SMALLEST FORMAL SYSTEM possible  12 lines of PROLOG. > > How do you know that is the smallest possible? > > I can tell you plenty of smaller ones. > > > > > > > > > > > tru(t). > > not(f). > > and(X,Y) : tru(X),tru(Y). > > and(X,not(Y)) : tru(X),not(Y). > > and(not(X),Y) : not(X),tru(Y). > > and(not(X),not(Y)) : not(X),not(Y). > > even(0). > > not(and( even(X) , not(even(s(s(X)))) )). > > e(A, evens) : tru(even(A)). > > tru(even(X)) : even(X). > > tru(e(A,S)) : e(A,S). > > tru(R) : not(and(L,not(R))) , tru(L). > > ************************** > > > by using a small subset of boolean input predicates (and, not) > > > You can enter this command into any PROLOG software > > > ? tru( e( s(s(s(s(0)))) , evens )). > > > YES > > > [4 e EVENS] is a Theorem. > > > *************************** > > > NOBODY in ANY maths department, newsgroup, book publishing house, > > expert software design house, university faculty lounge, high school > > maths class, fruit shop, hen house, dog house or Zuhair's scribble pad > > is going to follow one single deduction in CBL, yet alone accept it as > > a FORMAL PROOF. > > How could you conceivably know that? > > > LHS > RHS > > > Try THAT 1st before you attach your initials to the word LOGIC. > > Wow. > > I just proved a bunch of purported proofs wrong and the authors either > changed it and proposed another answer or had no answer, and you > didn't. > > "R(r) is not defined so it isn't a concept." > > "R(r) is not defined so you can't say (all x) R(x) . . . " > > "Frege said concepts must be total functions." > > People are quoting known proofs and I am finding flaws such as these, > which they tacitly admit (by rewriting the failed proof or having no > answer). > > If I saw anyone do that, I know well that's damn good. And when I did > it, Martin Davis approved and defended it. > > Go back under your rock. > > CB >
Charlie you know what an INCONSISTENT SYSTEM IS?
YOU!
I'm not joking, somewhere along the line you got your wires crossed and every sentence you output you think is PROVABLY TRUE but at the heart of all your reasoning somewhere there is a CBL theorem F and a CBL theorem ~F that are both true in your fantasy logical world.
This is causing EXCONTRADICTIONSEQUITURQUODLIBET
inside your mind... you are BLOWING SMOKE!
CBL is not anything usable because CBL is just YOUR BRAIN!
Everyone says CHARLIE BOO IS WRONG in every single reply to you, but you read every reply as everyone saying you are right, please do go on!
There is so much nonsense in your head, but you have no clue what the basic meanings of formula, string, true, false, proof, deduction, imply, theory, theorem actually mean!
Yet alone language, parse, formal, consistent, metamathematics, set theory, axiom, function, predicate...
You are using the street talk slang of clearly defined mathematical terms in a vain effort to twist them around and disprove what everyone else is saying.
G/L with CBL, but while it is only YOU making deductions via the rules of CBL it is not a usable framework for anyone else, it merely assists you in saying "I PROVED IT IN CBL SO NA".
HINT: Get a spreadsheet to go from 1 CBL statement to another!
Herc  www.BLoCKPROLOG.com

