Re: Source Code for OS?

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:

> Quantum_Cat wrote:
>
> > Hiya, Coot.
> >  *>Just like the statement "What time is it" can not be proven true or false...
> >  *>The error of these ill formed statements is mere too subtle for most to
> >  *>see...
> >
> > Hmmm... I know you read Roy's response to this.  Or at least you answered it.  He
> > refutation of your "statement" was concise, and nailed you sorry ass to the wall.
> > But of course, that big empty blind spot between your ears must have made you
> > miss it.  ;)
>
> ROFLOL - oh, it hurts, it hurts ;-)
>
> >
> >
> >  *>There is no limitation placed on the set of knowledge derived from the fact
> >  *>that one can not provide the truth value of a sentence that has no truth
> >  *>value.
> >
> > Translation:  I can make stuff up and because I'm infallible and me, it's true
> > and it's knowledge.
> >
> > Get a grip, Cooter...
> >
> >  *>I am lying!
> >  *>  What are you lying about?
> >  *>I am lying about lying!
> >  *>  What are you lying about lying about?
> >  *>I am lying about lying about lying!
> >  *>  What are you lying about lying about lying about?
> >  *>I am lying abut lying about lying about lying...
> >  *>  On and on forever recursive, thus ill formed.
> >
> >  *>Copyright P. L. Olcott 1997
> >
> > There!  Cooter!  If you want an example of valueless copyright material, that's
> > the perfect one!  ;)
>
> Someone help olcott stem the bleeding.
>
> >
> >
> >  *>Just like the statement... I am going to!  (not I am going TOO)... It lacks
> >  *>an object about which truth or falsity can pertain, thus merely creates an
> >  *>ill formed statement.
> >
> > I know, Cooter.  I'd say about 98% of your posts have been ill formed,
> > unsupported, baseless, and loonie.  I could be off by a percentage or two,
> > because I'm not infallible.  ;)
>
> But you failed to point out QC, that "I am going to!" is not a statement. To be a
> statement it must be a complete thought, and that isn't. Like much of olcott's
> statements, it's lacking thought.
>

His problem is that he uses rhetoric rather than reasoning in his dialogues.
>> Goedel's theorem sets up a situation where a system contains a
>> statement labeled N that says "Statement N cannot be proven".
Same problem here, no object for the truth value to be attached.



>
> Roy
>
> >
> >
> > I must say that the Good Dorktor must be SOOOO jealous of you.  You have mastered
> > the art of Bullshit far beyond his feeble skills.  ;)
> >
> > Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
> >
> > Quantum_Cat