Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> 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.  ;)
>

I never established that correct Grammar was one-and-the-same
thing as valid. You merely made this assumption, and I pointed
out that this is an incorrect assumption. The error is in your
assumption, not, in any of my statements.

>
> 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 NEVER said that grammar is the measure, thus your
statement that I "moved the goal posts" is a LIE.

>
>  *>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.
>

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

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

Try not mangling my words all over the place.
Try, whenever you make any reference to anything
I say, to ONLY USE (complete) DIRECT QUOTES...
Of course recursive statements are statements,
that is how BNF (computer language) grammar
works. I said that INFINITELY recursive
sentences are not statements...  PAY ATTENTION
to this word~~~> INFINITELY... Try and treat
English as a mathematical formalism, treat is as
you treat math... 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... 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...

>
>  *>>  *> 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