Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem

On Mar 17, 12:58 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

What are the formal theorems that are proven?

Sorry, but he hasn't given a fuckin' thing. It may make the
Conservatives feel good, but first you have to answer the age-old
question, "Where's the beef?" In this case, "WHAT is the beef - the
formal theorem?"

I too gave him examples, from among thousands, and he just ignores
them. (Coincidentally, my next example to give him was, like yours,
'every Boolean algebra is isomorphic to a field of sets'. To me, it's
a beautiful theorem.

Total bull***. What is the formal theorem?

C-B

MoeBlee
.

Quantcast