Re: All panduks are green
- From: "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:34:12 -0400
stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough) writes:
If we decide to treat the "vacuously true" propositions as
neither true nor false then
(x)(x # x --> x > x)
does not have a truth value because ~(Ex)(x # x). Analogically, if
~(Ex)Pxm
then
~(Ex)(Ey)(Pxy & Qy)
does not have a truth value, if Q is satisfied only by y = m. Do I
need to go any further in describing what P and m might be?
I can't imagine why you consider this an advantage. Why do you
want such statements not to have truth values?
Because if such statements cannot be true (by definition), it follows
that Goedel's theorem cannot be true in his logic. At least I *think*
that's why he thinks. How this weird claim would be useful to him is
beyond me. Does it mean that there are magically no formulas which
are neither provable nor refutable if we interpret the axioms of PA in
his (largely unspecified) logic? I can't imagine how.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"You may not realize it but THOUSANDS of people read my posts.
You are putting your stupidity on wide display."
-- James S. Harris knows about wide displays of stupidity.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: All panduks are green
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: All panduks are green
- References:
- All panduks are green
- From: Newberry
- Re: All panduks are green
- From: Newberry
- Re: All panduks are green
- From: Daryl McCullough
- All panduks are green
- Prev by Date: Re: All panduks are green
- Next by Date: Re: All panduks are green
- Previous by thread: Re: All panduks are green
- Next by thread: Re: All panduks are green
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|