Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem

On Mar 24, 2:24 pm, Peter_Smith <ps...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter Smith claims his book has my proofs, but see my reply - his
statements are not so.  His proofs are an order of magintude longer
and more complex than mine.

Hardly. What I said was that some of the proof ideas you very vaguely
wave your armsat  (e.g. about the unsolvability of the halting problem
entailing that the set of true sentences is not r.e.) are widely
available in the literature in properly worked out versions.

There is so much nonsense in just these 4 lines, where do I begin?
(Besides the fact that this is not what you said.)

1. What part of my proofs is vague and armwaving?

2. "some of (my) proof ideas are available in the literature"? That's
bad? Let's consider the negation of this statement: None of my proof
ideas are available in the literature. That would be preferable? But
then none of the proof ideas available in the literature would be used
in my proofs and CBL wouldn't be doing the job of capturing their
proofs!

You are literally saying that it is wrong if CBL formalizes proofs
that have been published! Don't you see something wrong with your
assertion?

Of course some of my proof ideas are available in the literature. In
other words, some of the proof ideas in the literature are available
in CBL! In fact, a ton of them are. Isn't that a good thing??

3. Furthermore, if only some of my proof ideas are available in the
literature, then some are not. In other words, CBL provides some
proofs that have never been published before! And you try to make
like that's a bad thing?? You have just agreed that CBL creates brand
new proofs. Thanks.

As far as your book goes, honestly, the proof that the true sentences
are not enumerable is WAY more complex than necessary. I can prove
this theorem in numerous ways (see my postings - will post them again
if you'd like to discuss this) and they are ALL much shorter and
simpler than all of the gyrations (7 or 8 steps) that you go through.

Where did you get that proof from? It would be very helpful to study
the origin of this proof.

And this is just the first of the proofs that you say are mine. No,
it isn't my proof. It's way the heck longer and more complicated than
the CBL proof of this theorem - all of the CBL proofs I have given, in
fact.

The CBL proofs are formal, simpler and numerous in number. You
provide one long messy proof and you say that is better than CBL's
numerous simpler proofs?????????

Did you really think you could get away with that?

Can you (anyone) prove me wrong? So do you now see the value in the
proofs I have provided? You like to brag about your book (no problem
- I thanked you for the interesting reference) but are you honest
enough to admit something is shown to be superior?

How about if you either prove me wrong or admit that what I have
provided is better? Why not?

Because I'm not a fucking professor and you will lie, cheat and steal
to the end of time to deny credit to anyone outside of your peers.

(Look through journals and see how academia dominates publishing.
Where are the mathematical geniuses who don't have a job working for a
college or university?)

One of my fans once posted a description of how psychologists
recognize this characteristic of some groups in society. Maybe we
should study that to fix the problem.

C-B
.