Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

You are being intentionally deceitful in your every
reference to what I say... You deliberately twist
my words, and then refute this mangled version.
If you do not immediately stop this dishonest
practice, I will give up on you. I kept giving you
the benefit of the doubt until, there was no doubt
remaining...

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> 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