Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

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

Hiya, Peter.

 *>>
 *>>  *>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?

Simple Misuse of Analogy Fallacy.  

You know.  The same problems that I related down further in the portion of my 
post that you ignored.  I guess you ignored Matthew's points too.  

You do look both ways when you cross a street don't 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".

This is what you ignored.  You do this way too much.  Fix it.

 *>>
 *>>  *>(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