Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> Hiya, Cooter.
>
>  *>> Oh goodie!  You fell into it good this time!  ;)
>  *>>
>  *>> Take the statements:
>  *>>
>  *>>         The following sentence is false
>  *>>         The previous sentence is true
>  *>>
>  *>> Each of those statements fits your criteria.  They both have an "Object
>  *>that this
>  *>> Statement Specifically refers to, for the Truth Value to be Attached"
>  *>>
>  *>> They are therefore well formed according to your rule.
>  *>>
>
>  *>You Err.
>
> Hey... I went with what you said.  If you aren't sufficiently coherent, that
> would be your error.  ;)
>
>  *>I claimed that {having an object} was a necessary condition to forming a
>  *>statement,
>
> The object is there (the other sentence).  The truth value was also attached.  ;)
>
>  *>I did not claim that it was a sufficient condition...
>
> The only other condition you've asserted has be that "All statements must be
> about something", which I demonstrated to be false.  Mathematical statements just
> are.  You are getting your meanings for statements confused.
>

All statements must be about something, yet
every sentence that is about something is
not necessarily a statement, simple non sequitur
error on your part... Besides in the two sentence
version of the Liar Paradox we really only
have a slightly more convoluted case of the same
problem, we still actually lack an object to
attach the truth value...

>
> Let's see.
>
>         The following statement is true.
>         1+2=3
>
>         1+2=4
>         The previous statement is false.
>
> Here, the statements follow the rules for well formed strings.  When they are
> interpreted symbol by symbol, they yield grammatical sentences.
>
>         The following statement is true.
>         The previous statement is false.
>
> Removal of the intervening mathematical statements does not diminish that they
> are well formed.  You're asserting again, and shooting blanks. ;)
>

An incorrect analogy, in the first case there was
no self reference, and the latter case there
was self reference with one level of indirection...
Remember pointers in "C" ?

>
> Quantum_Cat