Re: A Manual of Practical Reason

From: Acme Diagnostics (LFinezapthis_at_partpostmark.net)
Date: 01/25/05 

Date: 24 Jan 2005 18:24:03 -0600

Chris Menzel <cmenzel@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
>On 24 Jan 2005 10:06:04 -0600, Acme Diagnostics
><LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> said:
>>
>> We already covered that in the argument on this
>> subject which ended on 6-20-04 with this post:
>> http://tinyurl.com/44yvh (Your side lost. <g>)
>
>I don't plan to engage in any further debate here, Larry, as I think
>this particular horse has been thoroughly whipped to death,

Yes, neither do I. I want to emphasize to all that my only issue
is Torkel trolling my discussions. This subject was well-debated
and is no longer of interest to me.

Also, I had forgotten that you did indeed provide a serious
alternative here: http://tinyurl.com/4hsjy I am unqualified to
say if that was an improvement, but it seemed so to me.

>> has statements which are true in that axiom system, but cannot be
>> proved by using that set of axioms.
>
>As has been stated again and again, the idea of a sentence being "true
>in a set of axioms" is nonsense.

I'm unqualified to say. In such cases, I look at credentials not
giving degrees much weight, but on Usenet demonstration is what
counts most to me. Here, in this 650 character description of a
complex theory I have to look at editing credentials first, then
theory credentials, both needing to reside in one person.

One thing I can say. When people read the entire first sentence,
they do not inference "set of axioms" as a set of axioms. They
inference it as a math system to the best of their ability. I
don't know why that is. I have some guesses.

I'm able to read and understand the descriptions on most academic
web sites. They tend to confirm the explanation except for the
problematic phrase. That's why I changed it to "true in that
axiom system" for experts.

>As always, I wish you the best, but if these facts don't speak for
>themselves to you, then we just have nothing whatever to discuss.

I'm sorry that I can't accept everything you say on faith, but I
accept it as academic fact unless it becomes argumentative from
another reliable source. I thank you for a good analysis and
valuable reference. Also thank you again for being the one to
clue me in about the "true statements." In spite of our
disagreements, you've been helpful to me.

Larry

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Goedel - interesting problem?
    ... "Chris Menzel" wrote in ... > Larry, with all due respect, you cannot honestly continue touting the ... > educated layperson. ... b is true in the set of axioms. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Goedel applied to the real-world
    ... >Not those axioms needed to figure this set of axioms out? ... >or 0, each used as many times as necesarry, to produce all possible axioms, does ... That should clear it up for Torkel. ... Larry ...
    (sci.logic)