Re: Source Code for OS?

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:

> olcott wrote:
>
> > Quantum_Cat wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >  *>> Baloney... He designed a simple symbolic system with variables, a concept
> > >  *>of
> > >  *>> statement, rules, format...
> > >  *>>
> > >
> > >  *>How your yourself ever actually read it?
> > >
> > > I've read Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas R. Hofstadter.
> > > While he focused primarily on recursion, self-reference, consiousness and
> > > artificial intelligence, he did and excellent job explaining Godel's Theorem.
> > > From the premises through the design and finally to the proof.  I recommend it.
> > > Lots of websites with reviews if you're interested.
> > >
> >
> > Yes this is an excellent book. I have read many along these
> > same lines. Kurt's actual proof was so long and complex
> > as to confuse even himself.
>
> How modest, you even understand an argument so complex that the creator of the
> argument didn't get it, but humble you did.
>

I am basing the contention of his error on the analogues
provided in books such as Metamagical Musings, by this
same author. All authors whom have described his theorm
have described in terms of reasoning analogous to the
liar paradox. It is completely obvious (to me) that the
Liar paradox errs, yet so far no one else has been
able to see even this... The liar paradox makes the
same error as the statement below. Tell me the truth
or falsity of the statement immediately below this
sentence.

What time is it?

What was the truth or falsity of the above statement, and why?

>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >  *>The study of English as a mathemtical formalism makes errors such as the
> > >  *>Liar paradox, and Kurts Incompleteness theory much easier to see.
> > >
> > > Errors?  Still making that assertion?  *yawn*
> > >
> >
> > Its so easy for me to see. For me its like  1 + 2 = 3.
> > Yet not a one that I have presented, has yet to see
> > even the faintest glimmer.
>
> So, what's it like living on Olympus?

>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > "This statement is a lie".  You can't prove it true or false in English OR a
> > > derived system like Godel came up with. (for those of you still not filtering
> > > Cooter and me, that's the Liar's Paradox...)
> > >
> >
> > Neither can you prove that the following statement is
> > true of false, and for the same reason. On the next line
> > after this sentence I will present a statement and ask
> > you to tell me whether it is true or false, and why?
> >
> > What time is it?
> >
> > Now was that statement true or false, and why?
>
> 1. It it isn't a statement - it's a question.
> 2. Therefore, it can't be proven true or false, because it doesn't make a statement
> 3. The statement that QC made was a statement

Am I lying here? (in this question itself, without any reference to anything else that I
said)

>
> 4. Therefore, your following was in error, "Neither can you prove that the following
> statement is
> true of false, and for the same reason."  Not that you will admit it of course. People
> with a messianic complex never do.
>
> Roy