Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

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

Hiya, Cooter.

 *>>  *>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...

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

Intellectually dishonest.  Tisk.  See what I mean.  I make a point, you quibble, 
and then ignore it.  ;)

 *>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...

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.

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

 *>>  *> 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,

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.  ;)

 *>you can have grammatical sentences without meaning,

Sure.

 *>there is a huge difference between these two. 

Yup.  

 *>I am sure that you can see this distinction, you are just too self-absorbed
 *>to admit it.

Oh.  I admit it.  I'm just sitting here gloating on how once again, you've 
demonstrated your ignorance of all things logical.  ;)


Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!

Quantum_Cat