Re: Skolem Again


Chris Menzel wrote:
> Who said anything about peer-reviewed journals? The point was simply
> that you won't be taken any more seriously here, spouting off ignorantly
> about the L-S theorem

If that's how it comes across, then I'm sorry.

Are there people who expect themselves to be taken seriously in a
usenet group? With a peer-reviewed journal, you work for months or
years on getting it right, against a lot of competition (about 10% of
contributions get past the referees, apparently). With a usenet group,
you are writing quite hurriedly, in my case with the children making a
horrible noise on the piano. Plus many of the people submitting are
clearly quite mad. (Just look at some of the other threads).

If I make a mistake, please tell me what's wrong.

> It's about the implications of a technical result of which you
> are ignorant.

And which I am trying to understand, both by finding the'right'
textbook, and from what you are saying. I apologise if anything I say
comes off as 'spouting'. It was not intended.


> Most of your confusion arises from the fact that you are having
> such trouble distinguishing truth from truth in a model.

As I understand, "S is true in M" means that the state of affairs said
to exist by S, is included in M. I don't know what 'true' means. If
this is seriously stupid, do say what's wrong. It's quite unhelpful if
you say it's stupid.

> Do you mean, a given interpretation may result in "x is uncountable"
> being true of some set of things of which it is 'really' false?

> True *in some model* of some set of things of which it is "really"
> false.

It's the 'really' I am having trouble with. Why do you put scare
quotes around? What does it mean?

.