Re: Godel's theorem is invalid?


Charlie-Boo wrote:
> sradhakr wrote:
> > george wrote:
> > > sradhakr wrote:
>
> > > > This follows in my proposed logic NAFL,
> > >
> > > Please. The rest of us are talking about proving things
> > > from PA in classical FOL.
> > > The universal quantifer already has a semantics.
>
> If one formalizes FOL as functions, the universal quantifier becomes
> not a new primitive as you describe, but rather an expression composed
> of two existing primitives: equality between sets and the universal
> set. (all X)P(X) is P(a)=TRUE(a) for any given P where
> P(a)=(P(a)^TRUE(a)) for any given P.
>
> > > If you want to use a different one then you are going to need
> > > a lot of luck defining it, articulating it, and conveying it.
>
> > Well, I have already done it. It is upto the academic community to
> > respond. And sci.logic is not just about discussion of FOL.
>
> > Take a look at my work and refute it or criticize it. E.g. take a look
> > at http://arxiv.org/abs/math.LO/0506475
>
> He's not interested in investigating the truth or improvements. He's
> only interested in reinforcing his existing beliefs.
>
> "It is as fatal as it is cowardly to blink facts because they are not
> to our taste." - John Tyndall
>
One of the sad aspects of modern science (after about 1940 or
thereabouts) is the complete intolerance to dissent, probably because
of the instituitionalization of research. Once research becomes a
profession and a career, people inevitably become career-minded and
start to protect turf rather than investigate the truth impartially.
What I don't understand here is the complete hostility to those who
would not accept the mainstream viewpoint. Surely if my work on NAFL is
correct, people can comment on it, cite it, etc. without feeling
threatened in some way? Surely I ought to be able to develop this logic
and further my own career, without in any way harming others? On the
other hand, the present attitude of intolerance has already had tragic
consequences upon generations of researchers, who were more or less
forced to tow the line (or else face ex-communication, denial of
funding, ridicule, etc.).

Regards, RS

.