Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

[Olcott <olcott@uswest.net>]

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> Hiya, Cooter.
>
>  *>> Ah.. Moving the goal posts again.  You do that a lot.  ;)
>
>  *>I never established that correct Grammar was one-and-the-same thing as
>  *>valid.
>
> No, you were saying they were invalid because they were ill-formed.  That they
> didn't have the proper syntax.  That they weren't statements because of this.

I would bet you your soul that I did not say that ill formed
meant "didn't have the proper syntax"... I NEVER said anything
like this, and either you are LYING, or are absurdly bad
at keeping track of simple things...

>
>
>  *>You merely made this assumption, and I pointed out that this is an incorrect
>  *>assumption.
>
> No, when it was demonstrated that they did indeed have the proper syntax when

That SYNTAX was the point was your FALSE ASSUMPTION...
I NEVER mentioned that they were not syntactically correct...
There are many statements that are syntactically correct,
yet, not valid for Semantic reasons... The concept of valid
has nothing to do with syntax. It is very easy to derive a syllogism
that is syntactically correct, yet not valid...


>
> split into a pair of indirect recursive statements, you claimed that those too
> were ill formed, then retreated to semantics and stated that they weren't valid
> statements because they didn't have any meaning.
>
> Backpedalling.  Weaving.  Dodging.  Intellectual dishonesty.  ;)
>
>  *>The error is in your assumption, not, in any of my statements.
>
> Nope.  The error is in your statements.  I've demonstrated that a number of
> times.  You ignore those demonstrations.  ;)
>

I directly respond to your misrepresentation of my position...
To mistake my statement that the INFINITELY RECURSIVE
structure of both the Liar Paradox, and Godel's Incompleteness
theorem invalidates them as statements, to  mean that I don't like
recursion, is either a LIE, or and act of STUPIDITY... I really
can't believe that you could reasonably do something this stupid,
after all of the knowledge that you have demonstrated here, that
only leaves it as a LIE... Its hard to believe that it is a LIE,
because to cheat at conversation would require a sense of
self-esteem so low, that the knowledge that you demonstrated
would not be acquired...  Maybe you see cheating at conversation
as no big deal, merely playing a game?


>
>  *>> Intellectually dishonest.  Tisk.  See what I mean.  I make a point, you
>  *>quibble,
>  *>> and then ignore it.  ;)
>  *>>
>
>  *>You are the one lying here. You are saying that I changed the measure of
>  *>what is correct from grammar to semantics.
>

I NEVER established that the measure of valid statements
was Grammar... You continue to speak as if this was my
idea, rather than your false assumption...  I DARE YOU
TO FIND WHERE I SAID THIS !!!

>
> I am saying that you claimed that they were ill formed, therefore invalid.  When
> I disproved that point, you retreated to semantics.  ;)

You disproved nothing, You merely assumed a false measure, then
measured my statements against this false assumption... Grammar
is NOT the measure of the validity of statements... Otherwise
"It is raining, therefore you will receive a kidney operation"
would be a valid statement, rather than an example of non sequitur...

>
>
>  *>I NEVER said that grammar is the measure, thus your statement that I "moved
>  *>the goal posts" is a LIE.
>
> I've never said it was the "measure" either. That's another dodge on your part.
> I simply disproved your point of syntax

Yet I NEVER MADE A POINT ON SYNTAX!!!

> and then pointed out that you then
> backpedalled to semantics.  Go ahead and beat this strawman to death if you wish.

Why do you bother with the deceitfulness of this straw man fallacy?

>
> ;)
>
>  *>> Perhaps, but I'd like you to quit dodging the issue.  You make broad,
>  *>sweeping
>  *>> generalizations and when I call you on them, you skitter off to another
>  *>subject.
>  *>> Weaving and dodging.
>  *>>
>
>  *>I am just showing that you assumption that correct grammar logically entails
>  *>correct statements is incorrect...
>
> Ah.  Now your building a strawman to beat up on again, hmmm?  I said nothing
> about grammar entailing correct statements.  My point was that they were indeed
> STATEMENTS, despite your frequent claims and assertions that they weren't.
>
> Correctness is a matter of semantics.  We can go there now that you've been show
> incorrect in your syntax argument.  ;)
>

The following is a perfectly valid statement then right?
"I am going to go to the"

>
>  *>You keep insisting that this is true, and even claim that I said it, the
>  *>first is an error, and the second is a LIE.
>
> You're such a confused Cooter.  ;)
>
>  *>> Just getting you to admit that recursive statements are actually
>  *>statements has
>  *>> taken a week.  ;)
>
>  *>Try not mangling my words all over the place.
>
> It's difficult to mangle the incoherent.  ;)
>
>  *>Try, whenever you make any reference to anything I say, to ONLY USE
>  *>(complete) DIRECT QUOTES...
>
> I do.  See what I've done to this and all the previous messages in this thread?
> I respond to each of your major points.  And poke fun at a few.
>
> If you want me to delve back into that slimey pool of "verbage" that you've been
> cluttering up the newsgroup with, I'm afraid I'll have to pass.  Why go to all
> that work when you'd just ignore it.  ;)
>
> That, and since the archives are difficult to get to now that google bought deja,
> we'll just have to continue as we have.  You blundering along, and me jabbing you
> with logic.  ;)
>
>  *>Of course recursive statements are statements, that is how BNF (computer
>  *>language) grammar works. I said that INFINITELY recursive sentences are not
>  *>statements...
>
> But they are.
>
>  *>PAY ATTENTION to this word~~~> INFINITELY...
>
> Yes.  You have problems with Infinity, that's for certain.  ;)
>
>  *>Try and treat English as a mathematical formalism, treat is as you treat
>  *>math...
>
> It's not math.  Math is much more rigourous and formal.  And wouldn't allow you
> to weave and dodge and wiggle like you do with English.  ;)
>
>  *>I you were hired for a job,
>  *>and told that your salary was $100,023 per year, if they forgot to give you
>  *>the $100,000, and only gave you the $23,
>  *>I am sure that your would be dissatisfied...
>
> Uh... This pertains to infinite recursive statements?
>
>  *>It is it the same with my statements. When I say INFINITELY recursive, and
>  *>you leave off the INFINITELY part, you get my meaning ALL WRONG...
>
> Still, an infinitely recursive statement and a simple recursive statement are
> still statements.  One just has a terminating condition that can be met.
>
>  *>>  *>You can not have valid statements without meaning,
>  *>>
>  *>> I'm afraid you can.  It's called a contradiction.  We use those in logic.
>  *>Very

Ah so a contradictory statement is valid???
(That's what you just said!)

>
>  *>> powerful in establishing proofs or disproofs.  Much used in reasoning.
>  *>You
>  *>> should give them a try.  ;)
>  *>>
>
> Here's an example of what I mean.  You ignored this point entirely.  And a very
> fine point if I must say so.  ;)
>
> Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
>
> Quantum_Cat