Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

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

Hiya, Cooter.

 *>> 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. 

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...

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.

Looks like you're trying to move the goal posts.  Typical Cooter intellectual 
dishonesty.  ;)

 *>Try to show me a sentence that has no object, yet forms a valid statement,
 *>and thenn, you have refuted my actual claim.

Heh... I'm TRYING to nail down your hallucination of what a valid statement is.  
It certainly isn't anything close to those used in PM.  ;)

 *>> 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...

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. ;)

You're also back in the circular reasoning swimming pool.  ;)

 *>> 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.  ;)

You can quibble and wiggle and dodge some more if you wish.  I don't mind.  ;)


Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!

Quantum_Cat