Re: Source Code for OS?

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Matthew Russotto wrote:

> In article <3A836C23.6BA426B3@qwest.net>, olcott  <olcott@qwest.net> wrote:
> >The English narrative description of Kurt's
> >theory is analogous to the Liar Paradox,
> >and the Liar Paradox itself is merely an
> >ill formed statement that lacks an object
> >for the truth value to be attached, because
> >of infinite recursion. Evey English narrative
> >always has this same form...
>
> Goedel's theorem sets up a situation where a system contains a
> statement labeled N that says "Statement N cannot be proven".  But he

Which is exactly and precisely the same form as the Liar Paradox.
Statement N can not be proven ONLY because statement N
is not a statement. IFF statement N was a statement, thenn
statement N could be proven (within the body of purely analytical
knowledge).

>
> further shows that such a statement must exist in any system of
> sufficient complexity to do arithmetic.  Note that this isn't quite
> analagous to the liar paradox; statement N may be true without
> contradiction.
> --
> Matthew T. Russotto                                russotto@pond.com
> "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
> of justice is no virtue."