Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

[Peter Olcott <olcott@uswest.net>]

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> Hiya, Cooter.
>
>  *>Postulate: If the narrative descriptions of Godel's incompleteness theorem
>  *>are analogous to the theorem itself, then Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is
>  *>analogous to the Liar paradox.
>
> Still attempting to disprove it via an analogy?
>

Prove that this is incorrect if you can...
Try to stick to reasoning instead of rhetoric,
or is this too difficult for you?

>
>  *>Assertion: The Liar Paradox is an ill formed statement because it lacks an
>  *>object to attach a truth value to. All statements must be about something,
>  *>and the Liar paradox does not meet this requirement.
>
>  *>Assertion + Postulate = Godel's theorem is based on an ill formed statement.
>
> I assume you've read Matthew's rebuttal.  Why don't you try actually using
> Godel's Theorem?
>
>  *>To refute the reasoning you have several bases:
>  *>(1) The narrative description of the Theorem leaves out crucial details of
>  *>the Theorem itself, thus is not sufficiently representative of the actual
>  *>underlying reasoning, therefore is actually not analogous to the Liar
>  *>Paradox. (specifically point out which details are missing).
>
> As Matthew said, the actual statement Godel used was "there is no proof of P".
>
>  *>(2) Even if details are not missing, the self reference of the
>  *>Incompleteness theorem is entirely different that the self reference in the
>  *>Liar Paradox, thus these two are not comparable at all. (Specifically point
>  *>out exactly how these two differ, and why they are not comparable).
>
>  "There is no proof of P" can be true.
>
>  *>(3) The liar paradox is a perfectly valid statement, there is no requirement
>  *>that statements be about anything, this requirement is not true. (This seems
>  *>utterly absurd to me.)
>
> You're hung up on your paradox.  Read the real program.  ;)
>
>  *>(4) The liar paradox is about something it is about itself, and the
>  *>infinitely recursive nature of this self reference in no way invalidates
>  *>that the liar paradox is a valid statement. (What I assume will be your
>  *>fundamental basis)
>
> This is what happens when you base your disproof on the wrong subject.  Try
> again, Cooter.  ;)
>
> Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
>
> Quantum_Cat