Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

The LIAR admits to the LIE...

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> 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