Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

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

Hiya, Cooter.

 *>> Ah.. Moving the goal posts again.  You do that a lot.  ;)

 *>I never established that correct Grammar was one-and-the-same thing as
 *>valid. 

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.

 *>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 
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.  ;)

 *>> 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 am saying that you claimed that they were ill formed, therefore invalid.  When 
I disproved that point, you retreated to semantics.  ;)

 *>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 and then pointed out that you then 
backpedalled to semantics.  Go ahead and beat this strawman to death if you wish.     
;)

 *>> Perhaps, but I'd like you to quit dodging the issue.  You make broad,
 *>sweeping
 *>> generalizations and when I call you on them, you skitter off to another
 *>subject.
 *>> Weaving and dodging.
 *>>

 *>I am just showing that you assumption that correct grammar logically entails
 *>correct statements is incorrect... 

Ah.  Now your building a strawman to beat up on again, hmmm?  I said nothing 
about grammar entailing correct statements.  My point was that they were indeed 
STATEMENTS, despite your frequent claims and assertions that they weren't.

Correctness is a matter of semantics.  We can go there now that you've been show 
incorrect in your syntax argument.  ;)

 *>You keep insisting that this is true, and even claim that I said it, the
 *>first is an error, and the second is a LIE.

You're such a confused Cooter.  ;)

 *>> Just getting you to admit that recursive statements are actually
 *>statements has
 *>> taken a week.  ;)

 *>Try not mangling my words all over the place.

It's difficult to mangle the incoherent.  ;)

 *>Try, whenever you make any reference to anything I say, to ONLY USE
 *>(complete) DIRECT QUOTES...

I do.  See what I've done to this and all the previous messages in this thread?  
I respond to each of your major points.  And poke fun at a few.

If you want me to delve back into that slimey pool of "verbage" that you've been 
cluttering up the newsgroup with, I'm afraid I'll have to pass.  Why go to all 
that work when you'd just ignore it.  ;)

That, and since the archives are difficult to get to now that google bought deja, 
we'll just have to continue as we have.  You blundering along, and me jabbing you 
with logic.  ;)

 *>Of course recursive statements are statements, that is how BNF (computer
 *>language) grammar works. I said that INFINITELY recursive sentences are not
 *>statements...  

But they are.

 *>PAY ATTENTION to this word~~~> INFINITELY... 

Yes.  You have problems with Infinity, that's for certain.  ;)

 *>Try and treat English as a mathematical formalism, treat is as you treat
 *>math... 

It's not math.  Math is much more rigourous and formal.  And wouldn't allow you 
to weave and dodge and wiggle like you do with English.  ;)

 *>I you were hired for a job,
 *>and told that your salary was $100,023 per year, if they forgot to give you
 *>the $100,000, and only gave you the $23, 
 *>I am sure that your would be dissatisfied... 

Uh... This pertains to infinite recursive statements?

 *>It is it the same with my statements. When I say INFINITELY recursive, and
 *>you leave off the INFINITELY part, you get my meaning ALL WRONG...

Still, an infinitely recursive statement and a simple recursive statement are 
still statements.  One just has a terminating condition that can be met.

 *>>  *>You can not have valid statements without meaning,
 *>>
 *>> I'm afraid you can.  It's called a contradiction.  We use those in logic. 
 *>Very
 *>> powerful in establishing proofs or disproofs.  Much used in reasoning. 
 *>You
 *>> should give them a try.  ;)
 *>>

Here's an example of what I mean.  You ignored this point entirely.  And a very 
fine point if I must say so.  ;)


Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!

Quantum_Cat