Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

[Quantum_Cat <quantum-no-spam@cotse.com>]

Hiya, Cooter.

 *>You are quite adept at avoiding the point, but, then that's what America is
 *>all about... 

Non Sequitor?  Pot, Kettle, Black?  Getting steamed? ;)

 *>Free enterprise has marketing as its foundation, and marketing has
 *>persuasiveness, rather than truth as its objective.

You sound like you object.  But your religious beliefs appear to block your use 
of reason.  ;)

 *>I can see all through this though, that is why I continue to refocus your
 *>attention on the point at hand... 

You?  Focus? Heh.  Quibbles, Red Herrings.  That's Cooter.  ;)

 *>You accuse me of Red Herrings, when this is your own prime tactic...

I answer most all of your points.  You nuke most of mine.  ;)

 *>I am quickly losing interest in one who's focus is not on truth...

Odd.  I was going to say the same for you.  And may still. You've wandered far 
from your initial assertion.

 *>> Ill formed and well formed refer to grammar.  These statements were
 *>grammatical.

 *>Perhaps this false assumption is where everyone else is failing to
 *>understand. 

Sigh.  Like now.  You think that simply asserting an error on my part handles it.  
Provide evidence at least, fool.  ;)

 *>They assume that if all the rules are followed, then everything must be
 *>correct. 

The grammar is correct.  If you want to start pulling every other Cooterism in to 
cover your tracks, it's intellectually dishonest.

No.. Instead of granting us correct at this point, you quibble and dodge and try 
to weave yet another Cooterism to cover your butt.   I'm used to it.  I think 
it's kind of cute.  ;)

 *>This false assumption derives from the false assumption that the set of
 *>rules for English grammar is perfect.

LOL!  Any imbecile knows better.  Try again, Cooter.  ;)

 *>Within the branch of computer science that is the subject matter of the
 *>group listed below, it is common knowledge, that mere English Grammar is
 *>very far from a sufficient measure of validity...

Validity is an entirely different topic that your "ill-formed" prattle earlier.  
And apparently, Cooter's Definition of Validity doesn't allow recursive 
statements, Self referencing statements, and whatever else Cooter doesn't like.

English allows it.  'C' allows it.  Pascal allows it.  The PM formal system 
allows it.

Just get over it and admit your bias.  ;)

 *>>>>comp.ai.nat-lang<<<

Heh.. If you're there too, I pity the fools.  ;)

 *>I am not speaking of English from the viewpoint of grade school instruction,
 *>but, English itself as a mathematical formalism...

English doesn't do well as a mathematical formalization.  Try PM.  It's pretty 
darned good.  Even though Godel pointed out its and all axiomatic systems 
shortcomings.  

 *>I must now pin you down to a sub-micro point... Are you going to use you
 *>typical tactic of avoidance?

Sub-micro point.  How cute.  Like 4-D sound.  ;)

I thought I'd use sarcasm and humour about this time.  ;)

 *>Do you agree that the following sentence does not form a valid statetment?

 *>{I am going to the}

It's not grammatical.  Grammar says nothing about validity though.  But your 
misuse of terms is trying to cloud the issue once again. Naughty.  ;)

 *>What if anything is missing from this sentence, that would make it a valid
 *>statement?

A destination?  Like perhaps the point of your argument?  ;)

 *>{I am going there} is grammatical, yet is anything missing? If this
 *>"statement" is taken in isolation, and not connected to any other context,
 *>would it still be fully meaningful?

Meaning is an entirely different topic.  You're trying to cloud the issue again 
with Red Herrings.  Try to focus on just one aspect of your argument instead of 
going all over the field like this.  ;)

 *>Cite me even ONE example of a "statement" that isn't about anything..

OK.

"You're going to Hell"
"Let's examine Cooter's brain"
"Does Cooter have a point?"
"Cooter is infallible"

Now.  Perhaps we should get back to your use of the false analogy of the Liar's 
Paradox in attempting to disprove Godel's Theorem.

If English gives you so many problems with Formal Systems, let's take this to PM 
as Godel did.  I think I've reviewed it enough to handle this.  Have you?

Keep in mind, there are folks out there that can keep us both honest in a 
rigorous debate that this will now turn into.  Ready?  ;)


Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!

Quantum_Cat