Re: does sqrt(2) exist in CM?

From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 02/22/05 

Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:32:17 -0600

On 21 Feb 2005 10:15:37 -0800, examachine@gmail.com wrote:

>David C. Ullrich wrote:
>> On 19 Feb 2005 14:22:43 -0800, examachine@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >Chris Menzel wrote:
>> >> On 18 Feb 2005 14:48:31 -0800, examachine@gmail.com
>> ><examachine@gmail.com> said:
>> >> >
>> >> > Torkel Franzen wrote:
>> >> >> namducnguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > What would be the difference? Thanks.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The set of theorems of a formal system is effectively
>> >enumerable.
>> >> >
>> >> > What good examples do we have for consistent theories whose
>> >theorems
>> >> > are not enumerable?
>> >>
>> >> In the language of arithmetic, the theory whose axioms are exactly
>> >the
>> >> true sentences.
>> >
>
>> >Well, I was just testing Torkel's dexterity.
>>
>> Yeah, right. We all believe that.
>
>Talk in your own name, when you can.
>
>> This reminds me of a question I asked a little while
>> ago that you didn't see fit to answer: You asked me why
>> I commented on so many errors of yours while ignoring
>> Torkel's numerous errors. In reply I asked for an
>> example of such errors. Why didn't you reply to that
>> with a few examples?
>>
>> Just curious.
>
>Why are you so curious?

You asked me why I was complaining about your errors but ignoring
his. I try to answer direct questions, but in order to reply to this
intelligibly I need to know what errors you're referring to.

>Will you follow up and abuse anybody who has
>written anything wrong on this list? Certainly, you won't abuse Torkel.

Huh. Why do you imagine that is? Probably because he knows the
secret handshake, eh?

Hint: The errors listed below seem to be mostly matters of opinion,
and supposed personality flaws. Also I thought we were talking about
errors in this thread (possibly your comment about prefix-free sets
qualifies there - if so the answer to why I didn't complain about
that error is that I was unaware of it, having ignored that part
of the discussion.)

Hint: It doesn't happen that he _consistently_ claims to understand
something, stating condescendingly that he's surprised that the
rest of us don't understand it, regarding a topic that it turns
out he doesn't understand at all. As opposed to, for example,
when I asked you what you meant by "random real" - you replied
that you were surprised I didn't know what a random variable
was, and it took a _really_ long time to convince you that
if that's what you were referring to then your question about
whether a random real could be computable made no sense.

>People make errors. Torkel is no exception. His most recent error,
>among his many errors (most of them are philosophical errors), he wrote
>something totally incorrect about prefix-free sets, something that
>would make non-prefix-free sets prefix-free (contradictory). But that
>is of course not important, because people can correct their mistakes.
>I show where the error is, and that's enough. On other occasions he's
>made worse errors, such as about Godel's 1st incompleteness theorem and
>its logical consequences on which he is supposed to be an expert. On
>interpretation of Godel's Gibbs lecture, he's said many incorrect
>things, and on Raatikainen's foolish paper, he's attempted countless
>defenses none of which hold up. However, his worst error is that he
>does not know how to argue a philosophical point, he simply does not
>understand the maxims of conversation, and his rhetoric is completely
>impenetrable, it is completely circular and dogmatic. But I won't
>reiterate those here because I do not want to deal with some aggressive
>and assertive people who do not really understand the subjects in
>question. For instance, I have already heard immensely ignorant claims
>about information theory, so I think that's enough.
>
>I won't quote anything. Why should I dig the archives to show that, am
>I a maniac in search of vengeance?

No, to clarify what you were referring to when you asked me why
I wasn't complaining about his errors.

>No. I do not bring up old posts to
>abuse people, Mr. Ullrich.

If I were you I suppose I'd prefer that old posts not be
brought up. James Harris simply posts through google and
periodically deletes the posts that he's finally realized
are embarrassing - you might try that.

>I suggest you to get a life.
>
>If I'm right, now you will proceed to defend Torkel's errors, am I not
>right?

************************

David C. Ullrich

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Kill File Bullshitters
    ... computer experts who keep yakking on about kill files but fail to use ... turn are COMPLAINING about other people. ... "Mr" Barker posts elsewhere in the group, ... This is to say nothing of wilful distortion in which you collectively ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)
  • Re: Y&R: Jack Abbott
    ... ignore the parts of my posts that don't suit your beef with me? ... That we should all just not have any reaction to ... So I should curtail my opinions because of how they affect *you*? ... that's just complaining for the sake of complaining. ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs)
  • Re: Embedded Software Engineers, needed in Seattle
    ... lists of the all the worlds recruitment agencies? ... irrelevant things posted in a newsgroup, ... job posts, if communities weren't in the habit of getting crusty ... You are complaining about dialup. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Oneida Poker Room Is Dying!
    ... Irish Mike and doggy - thanks for both of your compliments in other replies to ... she copied my heading and reposted it, so i assumed she was referring ... posts from late 2007. ... thread she is most referring to: "Green Bay Oneida poker room dying!!". ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Statins and side effects......
    ... many pages of personal posts, all complaining of similiar problems. ... you are claiming that every single person who does NOT take a statin ... WILL die of a heart attack? ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)