Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Point by point, item by item, detail by detail
EXACTLY how is it an incorrect analogy.
(of course you know that when you are
pinned down to actual reasoning that is
directly focused on the point you can't
"win", so you will use yet another ruse to
avoid this direct confrontation.)

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> Hiya, Peter.
>
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>Postulate: If the narrative descriptions of Godel's incompleteness
>  *>theorem
>  *>>  *>are analogous to the theorem itself, then Godel's Incompleteness
>  *>Theorem is
>  *>>  *>analogous to the Liar paradox.
>  *>>
>  *>> Still attempting to disprove it via an analogy?
>  *>>
>
>  *>Prove that this is incorrect if you can... Try to stick to reasoning instead
>  *>of rhetoric, or is this too difficult for you?
>
> Simple Misuse of Analogy Fallacy.
>
> You know.  The same problems that I related down further in the portion of my
> post that you ignored.  I guess you ignored Matthew's points too.
>
> You do look both ways when you cross a street don't you?
>
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>Assertion: The Liar Paradox is an ill formed statement because it lacks
>  *>an
>  *>>  *>object to attach a truth value to. All statements must be about
>  *>something,
>  *>>  *>and the Liar paradox does not meet this requirement.
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>Assertion + Postulate = Godel's theorem is based on an ill formed
>  *>statement.
>  *>>
>  *>> I assume you've read Matthew's rebuttal.  Why don't you try actually using
>  *>> Godel's Theorem?
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>To refute the reasoning you have several bases:
>  *>>  *>(1) The narrative description of the Theorem leaves out crucial details
>  *>of
>  *>>  *>the Theorem itself, thus is not sufficiently representative of the
>  *>actual
>  *>>  *>underlying reasoning, therefore is actually not analogous to the Liar
>  *>>  *>Paradox. (specifically point out which details are missing).
>  *>>
>  *>> As Matthew said, the actual statement Godel used was "there is no proof of
>  *>P".
>
> This is what you ignored.  You do this way too much.  Fix it.
>
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>(2) Even if details are not missing, the self reference of the
>  *>>  *>Incompleteness theorem is entirely different that the self reference in
>  *>the
>  *>>  *>Liar Paradox, thus these two are not comparable at all. (Specifically
>  *>point
>  *>>  *>out exactly how these two differ, and why they are not comparable).
>  *>>
>  *>>  "There is no proof of P" can be true.
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>(3) The liar paradox is a perfectly valid statement, there is no
>  *>requirement
>  *>>  *>that statements be about anything, this requirement is not true. (This
>  *>seems
>  *>>  *>utterly absurd to me.)
>  *>>
>  *>> You're hung up on your paradox.  Read the real program.  ;)
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>(4) The liar paradox is about something it is about itself, and the
>  *>>  *>infinitely recursive nature of this self reference in no way
>  *>invalidates
>  *>>  *>that the liar paradox is a valid statement. (What I assume will be your
>  *>>  *>fundamental basis)
>  *>>
>  *>> This is what happens when you base your disproof on the wrong subject.
>  *>Try
>  *>> again, Cooter.  ;)
>  *>>
>
> Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
>
> Quantum_Cat