Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

So you can show that (by any consistent definition)
the Liar Paradox is a Well Formed Statement?
With me you don't have to have 100% precise
definitions on the first try, just try and avoid
contradictions...

Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:

> 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