Re: Looking for Undecidable Propositions in Systems without a certainamountofarthimetic.

On Aug 15, 3:08 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
MoeBlee wrote:
On Aug 15, 2:30 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

he point is we should *discuss* and
compare them for strengths and weakness, in a way that wold help us to better
reasoning, moving forward. Wouldn't you think so?

I just gave you my next bit in the discussion:

"when you're finished, and I've agreed to abide by your definitions,
I'll make up a new set of definitions, with new words like "latlology'
and define them with regard to semantics."

What say you to that?

Since you've not presented "latlology" in enough details, since face-prima
"latlology" truths seem isomorphic to canonical truths, since I've started
talking about my "project" first, why don't we compare the strengths and
weaknesses of my syntactical project (which isn't that different from the
syntacticalism part of Hilbert's program), and move on from there?

This is wearying. I don't see any point at all to your project. But I
at least offered the discussion point that if I agreed to all your new
definitions then I'd make new ones to replace the words you took over.
And I've asked you how that comfits with your project. If you're
sincere about a conversation, then please address my question.

Specifically, in the related thread "Godel cant tell us what makes a
mathematical  statement true", you said:

 > Of course, Those formulations of Godel's results that refer to 'truth'
 > would of course have a different meaning if you changed the definition
 > of 'true'.

Why don't we re-evaluate and compare Godel's results through the framework
he used (viz-a-viz the canonical arithmetic truth system) and my syntactical
truth system?

Because it's not interesting. It's not interesting to ponder what
happens to the statement, "All dogs are mammals" if we change the
definition of 'dog' to 'electric can opener'. If I want to address the
question of whether all electric can openers are mammals, I can just
as well do that directly rather than first redefine the word 'dog'.

MoeBlee
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Looking for Undecidable Propositions in Systems without a certainamountofarthimetic.
    ... compare them for strengths and weakness, in a way that wold help us to better ... he used (viz-a-viz the canonical arithmetic truth system) and my syntactical ... we must therefore examine the methods of the mathematician." ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Liars Paradox
    ... if we say "All apples ... In the Liar's Paradox, we say "This very statement is false." ... To judge the truth or falsity of "This very statement is false," we ... must compare the statement not only to itself as explicitly required, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Something to measure physical pressure.
    ... that I would compare the strengths of the plywood that the designer ... You can get relative numbers this way to compare and these should work ... with fiberglass, plywood, and even spruce scarf joints. ...
    (rec.aviation.homebuilt)
  • Re: Whack-Job Ken Smith, In a Rare Moment of Lucidity, Admits Hes Clueless
    ... Ted doesn't want to hear the truth. ... You shouldn't compare this with the Peterson trial. ... She's comparing Geragos' actions then with his ... RIF RIF RIF, Ted. ...
    (misc.legal)
  • Re: How Many Quivers?
    ... > Or the player is smart enough to play to his strengths and cover for his ... > weaknesses. ... > of the baldur's gate games where arrows are expended a *lot* faster, ... "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself ...
    (rec.games.frp.dnd)
Loading