Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Quantum_Cat wrote:

>
>
>  *>A sentence that has an INFINITELY recursive structure can never form a valid
>  *>statement,
>
> Yes it can.  If it fits the rules of grammar, it is valid.
>

Syntactic Validity is superficial...
I can say that I ate thirty battleships for my
morning coffee, and this grammar may be
correct, yet, battleships are no form
of coffee, (and can not be eaten) thus
Sematically invalid...


>
>  *> because it NEVER gets to the point...
>
> It doesn't have to get to the point.  That's the point.  You can have valid
> statements without meaning.  Touche'  ;)
>

You can not have valid statements without meaning,
you can have grammatical sentences without meaning,
there is a huge difference between these two. I am
sure that you can see this distinction, you are just
too self-absorbed to admit it.

>
>  *>Its like you asking me a question, and my "answer" is (always) "Wait a
>  *>minute, then I will tell you."
>
> Heh...  Fat chance of that.  You're a fount of knowledge.  Even if you have to
> "fabricate" it.  ;)
>
>  *>Its not an answer at all...
>
> Just as a bald assertion unbacked by evidence can be regarded as no answer at
> all.  ;)
>
>  *>"If I say that I am lying." and this sentence is not tied to anything else
>  *>that I said, then it is not a valid statement,
>
> Sure it is.  It's obviously referring to your default state.  ;)
>
>  *>because it is not about anything...
>
> Much like that multitude of verbosity you've spewwed all over this newsgroup. ;)
>
> Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
>
> Quantum_Cat