Re: "Friendly Premises"


Torkel Franzen <torkel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>>> What is meant by a self-proving procedure or a recursive proof?
>
>> You know the answers to both those questions.
>
> There is no concept of "self-proving procedure" or "recursive
>proof" in logic.

That statement is incorrect.

>> My inclination is to write a flame.
>
> Right, but such things aside, just what is it you have in mind
>when speaking of "self-proving procedure" and "recursive proof"?

How should I know? The context in which they were used is
missing.

Is this picking of phrases out of context just like what you did
with Dolan's Goedel piece?

Of course, now we all know that you made a large context
error in that case. Especially after that little exchange in
alt.philosophy.debate where I offered the piece to a poster who
appeared to know a lot about mathematical logic, and he thanked
me for it indicating that he inferenced the phrase "true in that
set of axioms" in context of the whole sentence with no problem
whatsoever, and which big Goedel error you normally make a big
stink about, but whereupon there was nothing but deafening
silence from you, though you replied to him about something else,
and which exchange I can link anytime.

Just like the 10 or whatever other people I said I tested it on,
none of them having the least problem inferencing that phrase as
an axiom system or mathematical theory, or as close to that as
they possibly could for their backround, for which there is no
substitute as we all know now after your feeble attempts as
demonstrated, which demonstration you and several other members
of your debating team ignored completely, and which is the genius
behind that particular editing masterpiece.

Which phrase you always misquoted as "true in a set of axioms" so
that even your misquote cluelessly removed any reference to the
rest of the sentence.

And there's that little matter of Frege's Context
Principle about the meaning of words depending on entire
sentences, Frege being the God of mathematical logic by
most accounts I've heard.

So I reiterate: Is your snipping of phrases out of context above
a similar case? Because I can always go back and fetch the
context and explicate the meaning of those phrases. But, again
just as with the Goedel piece, the meaning might then be much
different from what you've been able to reason out so far, and
you might not like the result any more than you liked the Goedel
result.

Larry
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Parrots as intelligent as young children
    ... phrases and frequently in context but I'm not at all convinced that they ... have any understanding of the meaning of the words. ... frequently true for humans too. ... She understands the context of the words and knows when to ...
    (rec.pets.birds)
  • Re: A Manual of Practical Reason
    ... >> I would not waste my time trying to determine an author's meaning ... >> designed to cause readers to inference in context. ... That phrase doesn't occur in the relevant Goedel description ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: O Sean Pitman, Redux
    ... Without context, neither of these phrases can be said to be ... From the very beginning I've told Zach that his programs ... > but the body is not with the king; the king is a thing" aren't really ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: On the Militia of the US Constitution
    ... Specifically, the meaning of ... of territory occupied by the political societies within ... Thus the meaning of "the people" in the context of the ... Justice Story just showed you that the context determines the ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Of win64 and pets
    ... >> A multiplicity of contexts does not mean a multiplicity of meanings within ... do take the concept of a single unified meaning for granted. ... it remains relatively pointless to argue that each context ... The state of unknowability would be a case where there is "fundamental ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)