Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:58:29 -0700 (PDT), MoeBlee <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
said:
On Mar 16, 8:01 pm, Chris Menzel <cmen...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:25:35 -0700 (PDT), Charlie-Boo
<shymath...@xxxxxxxxx> said:

...
...the ZF axioms aren't used to prove anything outside of simple,
fairly obvious, statements about sets.

Ignorant codswallop. I gave you three examples (of thousands):

1. Every singular limit ordinal k with cofinality < card(k) lacks the
Souslin property.

2. The Stone Representation theorem (every Boolean Algebra is isomorphic
to a field of sets)

3. Every normal function on the ordinals has arbitrarily large fixed
points.

(Refutations welcome.)

Where "welcome" = "ignored".

Wow, Charlie-Boo is STILL making that challenge and IGNORING replies.

And still unable to see that CBL is just Magickal Thinking. E.g., in
CBL, "P(I)" just *means* "P is recursive", where "recursive" appears to
be an undefined primitive; "YES(x,y)" just *means* "Turing Machine x
halts yes on input y", but one looks in vain for the definition of a
Turing Machine and what it is for one to halt on a given input. Simply
*declaring* those expressions to mean the complex concepts that he
intends them to mean is his idea of an adequate formal theory, simply
because he has no clue what a formal theory *is*. But instead of
educating himself -- he certainly seems smart enough to learn the
material -- he appears to be stuck in the illusion that his work is
simply too innovative and original to be accepted by a mathematical
community that is blinded by its ossified traditions. Pity that. I
mean, I'd really *like* the guy to have the pleasures of learning and
appreciating the actual mathematics he's groping toward. I guess that's
why I keep responding in off moments.

.

Relevant Pages