Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

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

Hiya, Cooter.

 *>>
 *>> Hmmm... I don't recall this comment of mine in THIS branch of the thread. 
 *>As I
 *>> recall, it was in regards to your comment that Property was a recursive
 *>> definition in the law.  I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of your position
 *>when you

 *>No hypocrisy at all LIAR... 

Let's see.  I dug it up:

 *> *>In Law Books the conditional AND is by recursive specification. Since the
 *> *>word Property is explicitly defined as a thing of value, and every
 *>example
 *> *>of the crime of theft, includes (and requires) the word property, then
 *>the
 *> *>conditional AND is included by the recursive specification of this
 *>crime...

 *>You forget.  You don't like recursive specifications.  :D That invalidates
 *>everything!

Now let's see.  In your argument, you make the assertion that: "In Law Books the 
conditional AND is by recursive specification." plus some other babble.

I've checked the several law sources and found nothing to back up your assertion.  
In fact, the only legal definition of "specification" had to do with patent law 
and didn't refer to property or recursion at all.

I bet you're LYING!!!  ;)

Now if we trot off and look this up in a dictionary... Say "The American 
Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.   2000." we find

specification  NOUN :
1. The act of specifying. 

2. a. specifications A detailed, exact **statement** of particulars, especially a 
statement prescribing materials, dimensions, and qualityof work for something to 
be built, installed, or manufactured. b. A single item or article that has been 
specified. 

3. An exact written description of an invention by an applicant for a patent. 

I contend that your use of "recursive specification" could be considered 
synonymous with "recursive statement".  As much of our previous discussion 
revolved around recursive statements and your denial of their validity, then your 
acceptance of your assertion is hypocritical.  

Of course, you just made the whole thing up anyway, since you were LYING!!!  ;)

 *>You can't get by pretending to be stupid enough to get the term {INFINITELY
 *>Recursive} confused with the term {Recursive Specification} 

As far as I can see, they are both recursive statements.  One you made up, and 
one that annoys you.  ;)

 *>this was ONLY a deceitful attempt to discredit my position...

Faulty logic, torturing definitions of words to suit your argument, inventing 
terms, ignoring arguments that showed you in error and other fallacies did far 
more to discredit your position.  ;)

 *>The aspect of BOTH the Liar Paradox, 

Ah... another LIE!!!!!  ;)

 *>and Godel's Incompleteness that makes them both invalid statements is not
 *>the RECURSIVE nature of their formation, but, that this recursive nature is
 *>INFINITE... 

Peter, you pathetic porcine putz.  Matthew and I adequately demonstrated that 
your assertion was in error.  There's nothing infinite about Godel's statement.  
You're continuing to claim it is is demonstratively false.  Therefore you LIE!!!  
;)

 *>  I used the term INFINITE RECURSION at least a half dozen times, there is
 *>NO EXCUSE for you to twist these words...

Yup... And you used recursive statement too.  We spent a great deal of time on 
self referring statements.  You gave every indication that you didn't think of 
them as valid.  But perhaps you were LYING!!! ;)

 *>>
 *>> accept such a statement as this here, but not in our other debate with
 *>regards to
 *>> Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.  ;)
 *>>
 *>>  *>I NEVER said that I don't like recursive specifications, you are LYING
 *>>  *>about this.
 *>>
 *>> You certain have given me cause to believe to the contrary.  You do not
 *>accept
 *>> their use in formal mathematical systems and proofs, but _DO_ for law.
 *>>

 *>You are a LIAR, imagine that, someone with such low self-esteem, that they
 *>even choose to cheat at conversation...  

I can only imagine that you were surprised to be beaten by someone who DIDN'T 
have to make up terms, torture definitions, ignore arguments, claim omniscience 
or infallibility, use faulty logic, and quibble.

It must have been a shock.  Poor baby.  You'll get over it.  Here.  Let me give 
you a hug.  You'll feel better then.  *umm ummmm um um ummmm*.  See?  ;)

 *>I bet you cheat at cards and checkers too.

Hold onto your wallet.  You'd lose here too.  ;)


Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!

Quantum_Cat