Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

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

Hiya, Cooter

 *>>  *>> 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...

Ill formed and well formed refer to grammar.  These statements were grammatical.

If you have further objections, they can't be of the "ill formed" nature.

 *>> 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, 

No, all sentences should be grammatical.  These are.  The English lanquage is 
filled with statements and expressions which don't follow your "rules".  ;)

 *>simple non sequitur error on your part... 

Nonsense.  You're just weaving and dodging the issue.  Sorta tiresome.  ;)

 *>Besides in the two sentence version of the Liar Paradox we really only have
 *>a slightly more convoluted case of the same problem, 

Yep.  And it bypassed your little objection about grammar.  So the problem isn't 
about grammar at all is it?  It's about your refusal to accept recursive 
statements in English.  They are legal statements.  Tough, isn't it.  ;)

 *>we still actually lack an object to attach the truth value...

Look close.  Look REAL close.  ;)

 *>>
 *>> 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, 

No more so than your Liar's Paradox analogy has anything to do with Godel's 
Incompleteness Theorem.  ;)

 *>in the first case there was no self reference, and the latter case there was
 *>self reference with one level of indirection...

So your problem is with self reference.  Tough.  It's permitted.  Whine and mope 
now.  ;)

 *>Remember pointers in "C" ?

Yeeeaahhh... Have you forgotten that pointers are legal in C.  Required even?  
When you shoot yourself in the foot like this, it's a wonder that you still have 
toes.  ;)


Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!

Quantum_Cat