Re: Goedel - interesting problem?

From: Acme Diagnostics (LFinezapthis_at_partpostmark.net)
Date: 06/05/04 

Date: 5 Jun 2004 13:23:08 -0500

Torkel Franzen <torkel@sm.luth.se> wrote:
>"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> writes:

You said:
>>"Godel proved
>>that even mathematics is full of contradictions."

You snipped this from my reply:
>I would need to know if "full" is
>correct or the general concensus.

So that you could think yourself clever with:
>>It's complete nonsense, though.

I reminded you about that with:
>I did not accept "full."

To which you did not respond in your next reply.
- - - - -

You said:
>>there are statements that can be formulated within the theory, but
>>neither proved nor disproved in the theory

Which is superseded in all respects of explanation by Dolan's:
>>>Goedel's incompleteness theorem only shows that some true
>>>math facts cannot be proved within math, not that none of
>>>them can.
- - - - -

You said:
>> Since you don't claim to know anything about Godel's theorem or its
>>proof,

For which I needed to clarify your muddled logic with:
>Note that "don't claim to know anything" is not the same as, "claim not
>to know anything."
- - - - -

You said:
>>text by Kent Paul Dolan that you quote
>>promotes misconceptions quite unnecessarily.

Not being an expert in Goedel's theorem, I asserted confidence in
the author's credentials, then described sufficiency of same and asked:
>...Are you such a Phd by any chance?

To which you did not respond.

Upon more criticism of the author's piece, I asked:
>I notice that you did not claim a phd, support of a university, etc.
>Do you have some pertinent credentials that I could find reliable
>in comparison to the author's, some of which I've mentioned?

To which you again did not respond.
- - - - -

I said:
>Stupidity is the difference between ambition and achievement.

Which you seem only too happy to continue demonstrating with:

I said:
> I wound up writing 500
> lines of explanatory support.

To which you added another unsupported opinion that:
>>... your various comments were nothing to the point, since they
>>made no distinction between accurate summaries of Godel's
>>theorem and vague or incorrect blathering about it.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Larry