Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:02:16 -0700 (PDT), Charlie-Boo
<shymathguy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 29, 6:46 am, David C. Ullrich <dullr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:39:09 -0700 (PDT), Marshall

<marshall.spi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 28, 4:56 am, David C. Ullrich <dullr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:23:52 -0700 (PDT), Charlie-Boo

If you want to know the truth of the matter, any programmed
implementation of CBL will use only one symbol for both "implies" and
"subset", as there is no ambiguity and they are the same principle.
In fact, there is no reason to distingush between a set and a
predicate.

Oh my god.

Can you expand on that? Is your objection to unifying
"is-a-subset-of" and "implies", or to unifying set
and predicate, or both?

They're both fascinating, but mainly I was commenting
on the first. As someone else (I didn't think it was Norm)
pointed out, evidently there's nothing corresponding
to what we think of as simple logic in CBL: since
"A is a subset of (B is a subset of C)" makes no
sense there must be no such thing as "A implies
(B implies C)".

The problem is that he was flipping back and forth. The distinction
just doesn't exist.

The distinction between "implies" and "subset" doesn't exist?

Seems like you haven't been reading these posts. We
all know what "A implies (B implies C)" means.
So tell us, what does

"A is a subset of (B is a subset of C)"

mean?

Are you thinking of the same
objection that Norman Megill outlines, or are there
other issues as well?

Marshall

David C. Ullrich

David C. Ullrich
.

Relevant Pages