Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

>
>  *>EXAMPLE:
>  *>{George Washington was the first president of the United States} In this
>  *>case the object of the statement is {first president of the United States}.
>  *>If I would have said {George Washington was the}, it would lack the object,
>  *>thus fail to form a valid statement.
>
> Oh goodie!  You fell into it good this time!  ;)
>
> 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. I claimed that {having an object} was
a necessary condition to forming a statement,
I did not claim that it was a sufficient condition...
Try to show me a sentence that has no object,
yet forms a valid statement, and thenn, you
have refuted my actual claim.

>
> Yet you cannot deny that they are self referenced, although indirectly.
>
> You've attempted to ban direct self referencing statements like "This statement
> is false" by claiming that it is ill-formed.
>

The above combination of sentences also do not
create well formed statements...

>
> What are you going to do now that we have statements that fit your definition of
> well-formed, yet retain self referencing?
>
> You know that whatever method you come up with, it simply requires another small
> step of further indirect referencing to invalidate your new method.  Ad
> infinitum.  Therefore, there are statements that are impossible to prove in any
> sufficiently powerful axoimatic system.
>
> Checkmate.  ;)
>
> Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
>
> Quantum_Cat