[no subject]

>
> Now, the only similarity between these statements is that both of them are self-
> referal.  The Liar's Paradox in English, and Godel's Proof in Godel-numbering.
>
> For your assertion to be correct, you would need a one to one mapping of your
> analogy to Godel's Theorem.  This was phrased as: "Only if the analogy is
> perfect.  Which it is not." by Matthew Russotto in a previous post.
>

"This statement cannot be proven"
"This statement is false"

The analogy (mathematical mapping)
that I claim is that both of these sentences are
ill formed statements for the same reason of
self reference. Statements require an object
to attach the truth value to, they must be about
something, or they are not well formed statements.

Try to address this very sharply focused point directly
with specific reasoning. You are doing much better
at this now, I trust that you can do this...

Here are some suggestions for you to attack my position.
(1) Statements do not have to be about anything.
(2) Self reference does not invalidate that a sentence
is a statement.
(3) One of these two involves self reference and
the other does not.
(4) "This statement cannot be proven" does
not represent Godel's theorem accurately,
here is why...


>
> You responded with: "What are the specific imperfections?" which of course,
> Matthew had already related to you with:
>
>  > The Liar paradox cannot assume a truth value without contradiction.
>  > The Goedel theorem can assume a truth value of "true" without contradiction.
> As is typical with your intellectual dishonesty, you ignored his point as you
> have of mine.
>
> Since a one to one mapping is required to validate your assertion, only one point
> is required to disprove your conclusion.
>
> The Liar's Paradox can not be resolved as to truth or falsehood.
>
> Godel used number theory in his proof.  Specifically that from "Principia
> Mathemetica".  His proof demonstrated that his statement was true.
>
> Get this.  It was resolved.  This is the only point needed to invalidate your
> argument.  Not to mention the other obvious errors you've made in your assertion.
>