Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

Hank Levinson wrote:

> It is really a pity that no one so far has properly defined terms

But Hank, if the terms were defined, and the definitions were agreed upon, it
would be all too possible that one of two conditions would be met:
    1. One person would be proven wrong
    2. People might come to an agreement.
Neither of those conditions would be entertaining (kinda like this thread huh?)

> such as
> 'infinite', 'well-formed formula', 'consistent', 'complete', 'first order
> predicate calculus' in terms of which Godel's "Incompleteness Theorem" may
> be correctly stated.
> However, I question what this discussion, as you call it, is doing on this
> newsgroup. It is worthy of juvinile Sci-Fi.

I would never argue with you about math Hank, (I may be dumb, but I'm not
stupid) however, when I was a juvenile, I read a lot of juvenile Sci-Fi, and
these posts are way over that level. They've got to be at least as serious as a
Spider-Man comic book!  ;-)

Roy

>
>
> Dr. H. Levinson, Prof. Emeritus of Mathematics, Rutgers U., Newark, NJ 07102