Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- From: Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 02:40:02 GMT
On 2008-03-22, in sci.logic, R. Srinivasan wrote:
I do not agree that this is a straghtforard process.
You're of course free to disagree with anything you like, but unless
you provide some specific reason for your disagreement it remains
entirely arbitrary and uninteresting. Do you, in fact, envisage some
specific difficulty in formalising talk about formal sentences?
Obviously you are now claiming that a single sentence in the
language of theory can say something about all sentences in the
language.
That is, in fact, just what I am claiming.
In first order logic, sentential variables are not part of sentences
and there is a valid reason for that as far as I am concerned.
In the straightforward formalisation of talk about formal sentences I
alluded to there is no need to involve sentential variables.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- From: R. Srinivasan
- Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- References:
- Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- From: djrt20
- Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- From: R. Srinivasan
- Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- From: R. Srinivasan
- Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- From: R. Srinivasan
- Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- From: R. Srinivasan
- Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- From: R. Srinivasan
- Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- From: R. Srinivasan
- Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- Prev by Date: Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- Next by Date: Mathematics has no foundations
- Previous by thread: Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- Next by thread: Re: Godel's comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|