Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> Hiya, Cooter.
>
>  *>> No, you were saying they were invalid because they were ill-formed.  That
>  *>they
>  *>> didn't have the proper syntax.  That they weren't statements because of
>  *>this.
>
>  *>I would bet you your soul that I did not say that ill formed meant "didn't
>  *>have the proper syntax"...
>
> Well, I'm not going to ask what you meant.  You bore me.  In every other instance
> I know of, "ill formed" has to do with grammar or syntax.

What about all those little errors of reasoning known as fallacies
that have nothing at all to do with syntax, but, everything to do
with validity? Is this a well formed syllogism???
"I am going to the store, therefore you will have a hernia operation."
The problem here is certainly NOT the grammar...

>
>
> When I DID ask (silly me) you went off on some tangent.  Forget that.
>
>  *>I NEVER said anything like this, and either you are LYING, or are absurdly
>  *>bad at keeping track of simple things...
>
> I'll let the record stand.  It's archived.  Folks read it, or if they're smart,
> they blew this whole thread off as a loss.  ;)
>

The RECORD PROVES that I NEVER said any such thing...
AS I said, I owuld bet your soul that I didn't... I DARE YOU
to find where I said this..

>
>  *>>  *>You merely made this assumption, and I pointed out that this is an
>  *>incorrect
>  *>>  *>assumption.
>  *>>
>  *>> No, when it was demonstrated that they did indeed have the proper syntax
>  *>when
>
>  *>That SYNTAX was the point was your FALSE ASSUMPTION...
>
> *Yawn* Hey.. It's late here.  I've done my laps with your idiocy.  Run with this
> if you want.  You'll run alone.  ;)
>
>  *>I NEVER mentioned that they were not syntactically correct...
>
> "ill formed" = Whatever the hell Cooter wants it to be.  whoopee..
>
>  *>There are many statements that are syntactically correct, yet, not valid for
>  *>Semantic reasons...
>
> Yes.  No argument here.  Not that you know diddly about semantics.
>
>  *>The concept of valid has nothing to do with syntax.
>
> If you follow the rules of inference and syntax of your system and you come up
> with an invalid statement, that is useful in proving or disproving a theorem.
>
>  *>It is very easy to derive a syllogism that is syntactically correct, yet not
>  *>valid...
>
> So you can easily disprove it.  Big deal.
>

Why did you ever mention that I was talking about mere syntax
when everyone would know that this is NOT what I was talking
about?

>
>  *>> split into a pair of indirect recursive statements, you claimed that those
>  *>too
>  *>> were ill formed, then retreated to semantics and stated that they weren't
>  *>valid
>  *>> statements because they didn't have any meaning.
>  *>>
>  *>> Backpedalling.  Weaving.  Dodging.  Intellectual dishonesty.  ;)
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>The error is in your assumption, not, in any of my statements.
>  *>>
>  *>> Nope.  The error is in your statements.  I've demonstrated that a number
>  *>of
>  *>> times.  You ignore those demonstrations.  ;)
>
>  *>I directly respond to your misrepresentation of my position...
>
> Sure... That'll be the day.
>
>  *>To mistake my statement that the INFINITELY RECURSIVE structure of both the
>  *>Liar Paradox, and Godel's Incompleteness theorem invalidates them as
>  *>statements,
>
> *Ding* *Ding*.  Fool.  Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is NOT!  Repeat NOT! an
> INFINITELY RECURSIVE Theorem.  It can be true without contradicton.  I even gave
> you a URL to an English translation of it.  I even paraphrased it for you.

The Paraphrase was infinitely recursive,
Exactly the same way that the Liar Paradox is Infinitely Recursive.

>
> Others did as well.
>
> Seeing how you appear to have a permanent cranial/anal impaction, it merely
> becomes tiresome to rehash this.  You're too friggin' dense.
>

You are much more dense in taking this this mean that
I don't like recursion. Even though I have restated this
position a half dozen times, you are just now coming
to realize that you can't drop off a few words, and
not lose most of my meaning...

>
>  *> to  mean that I don't like recursion, is either a LIE, or and act of
>  *>STUPIDITY...
>
> To contend beyond all evidence that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is INFINITELY
> RECURSIVE and ill formed is an act of STUPIDITY.  You seem to handle stupidity
> well enough.  ;)
>

The paraphrase IS infinitely recursive...
The paraphrase is universally accepted
as an accurate representation of Godel's
position...

>
>  *>I really can't believe that you could reasonably do something this stupid,
>
> Perhaps.  I've been discussing this with you for how long?  I can feel my brain
> cells dying off just by your proximity.
>
>  *>after all of the knowledge that you have demonstrated here, that only leaves
>  *>it as a LIE...
>
> Yeah, yeah... Yet another baseless assertion.  If you packaged it, it might make
> great organic fertilizer.  ;)
>
>  *>Its hard to believe that it is a LIE,
>
> Impossible to my mind.  ;)
>
>  *>because to cheat at conversation would require a sense of self-esteem so
>  *>low,
>
> Self-esteem is overrated.  You're really hung up on it though, aren't you?
> Hey... Admitting you're wrong isn't the worst thing in the world.  Being shown to
> be a mindless delusional fool is.  ;)
>

I NEVER needed to stoop to Ad Hominem, I wonder
why you see that you need to degrade yourself by doing
this?

>
>  *> that the knowledge that you demonstrated would not be acquired...
>
> Painfully.  I didn't think of the option of just making stuff up as I went.  ;)
>
>  *>Maybe you see cheating at conversation as no big deal, merely playing a
>  *>game?
>
> It's a game now.  You didn't come into this debate with good faith.  You've
> continually demonstrated intellectual dishonesty and other borish behaviour.  I'm
> just here now to taunt you.  ;)
>

That last statement rings true... You are not here to learn
the truth, you don't care about the truth at all, you are just
here to taunt me... Well it aint workin... I know that what
I say is the truth, and this can withstand all taunts, it is
immutable... I could taunt you right back, you have either
made some very stupid mistakes, or have proven to be
a liar... I would not like either of these things true about me...

>
>  *>>  *>> Intellectually dishonest.  Tisk.  See what I mean.  I make a point,
>  *>you
>  *>>  *>quibble,
>  *>>  *>> and then ignore it.  ;)
>  *>>  *>>
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>You are the one lying here. You are saying that I changed the measure
>  *>of
>  *>>  *>what is correct from grammar to semantics.
>
>  *>I NEVER established that the measure of valid statements was Grammar...
>
> We were talking about statements.  You said they were ill formed.  If you're
> going to pop off with another "perhaps I wasn't precise with my terms", I'll hit
> you with a rock.  ;)
>

The default measure of the validity of statements IS NOT SYNTAX!!!
This was a stupid assumption on your part... It wasn't merely an assumption,
it was a stupid assumption... The kind of assumption that people with
your education and intelligence should NEVER MAKE... Its almost
as bad as going to work, without pants or underwear, because
you didn't pay attention to what you were wearing...

>
>  *>You continue to speak as if this was my idea, rather than your false
>  *>assumption...  I DARE YOU TO FIND WHERE I SAID THIS !!!
>
> Ill formed implies syntax.  Get over it.  ;)
>

"Therefore since it is either raining or not raining, you must
be stupid." Is not only a valid statement, it is also a sound
statement, specifically because the syntax is correct.

>
>  *>> I am saying that you claimed that they were ill formed, therefore invalid.
>  *>When
>  *>> I disproved that point, you retreated to semantics.  ;)
>
>  *>You disproved nothing, You merely assumed a false measure, then measured my
>  *>statements against this false assumption...
>
> Ill formed means?  Heh.. Nevermind.  I'll not get sucked into that black hole of
> mind of yours.  ;)
>
>  *> Grammar is NOT the measure of the validity of statements...
>
> Syntax.  Rules of inference.  Semantic.  They all tie together.
>
>  *>Otherwise
>  *>"It is raining, therefore you will receive a kidney operation" would be a
>  *>valid statement, rather than an example of non sequitur...
>
> Yup.  Rules of inference.  Check out PM again and follow Godel's Theorem again.
> Yes, the symbols take some getting used to.  The concepts and rules are easy
> enough to follow.
>
>  *>>  *>I NEVER said that grammar is the measure, thus your statement that I
>  *>"moved
>  *>>  *>the goal posts" is a LIE.
>  *>>
>  *>> I've never said it was the "measure" either. That's another dodge on your
>  *>part.
>  *>> I simply disproved your point of syntax
>
>  *>Yet I NEVER MADE A POINT ON SYNTAX!!!
>
> Ill formed.
>

Bad assumption admit it...

>
>  *>> and then pointed out that you then
>  *>> backpedalled to semantics.  Go ahead and beat this strawman to death if
>  *>you wish.
>
>  *>Why do you bother with the deceitfulness of this straw man fallacy?
>
> Ill formed.
>
>  *>>  *>>  *>You can not have valid statements without meaning,
>  *>>  *>>
>  *>>  *>> I'm afraid you can.  It's called a contradiction.  We use those in
>  *>logic.
>  *>>  *>Very
>
>  *>Ah so a contradictory statement is valid???
>  *>(That's what you just said!)
>
> If you construct a statement with the required syntax and used the proper rules
> of inference for your system, and demonstrate a contradiction, then your PROOF or
> DISPROOF is valid.    The statement itself is without meaning, but we use it to
> determine meaning via PROOFS.
>
> You seem to want to skip this important step in logic and abort the whole issue
> before it reaches a conclusion you don't like.  Intellectual dishonesty.
>
> I HAVE given some thought to you though.  I think you're a construct.  A
> Frankenturlette.  Parts made from Dorktor Tom, RoseyWanker, and Imbecilicon.  And
> hideously amplified.
>
> The world should be frightened.  ;)
>
> Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
>
> Quantum_Cat