Re: [PO] Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?

From: Robert Low (mtx014_at_linux.services.coventry.ac.uk)
Date: 08/30/04 

Date: 30 Aug 2004 19:43:29 GMT

Jym <moyen@loria.fr> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Aug 2004, Peter Olcott wrote:
>> to be valid. That is also why the Liar Paradox is not a paradox
>> at all, but, merely an incorrectly formed statement.
>
>Did you ever heard of Gödel's incompletness theorem ?

He's already 'refuted' that in an earlier thread, by observing
that self-referential sentences are ill-formed and therefore
inadmissible. (At least, I think that's what he claimed.)

Check the thread from May this year, with title 'The liar paradox
is merely an ill-formed statement' in sci.logic.

Disclaimer: I've only glanced at a couple of posts in that
thread, so it's possible I'm mischaracterizing it. But
it looked pretty similar to much of the current discussion
about the halting problem in many ways. 

-- 
Rob.  http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/