Re: what follows from denying an axiom

On Jan 22, 2:58 pm, Chris Menzel <cmen...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
you frequently stick your foot in your mouth.

Flaunting ignorance is an efficient way of getting it corrected,
in a context where that is what people care about. Unfortunately,
people here (me included) usually care more about defending their
egos.

 Case in point here.

Yes, indeed, it is.

 What I *said* was:

I DO NOT give a ***!
THIS is about what *I* am saying!

You do understand English well enough to see that that does not say that
Henkin's semantics itself is second-order, right?

This issue IS NOT what *I* do or don't understand!
The ISSUE is what YOU do or don't understand!
Unfortunately, your goal here is not really increasing anyone's
understanding.
It is just proving that you didn't make a mistake. Mistakes happen
all the time.
That is not even WORTH fighting about.

MY point was that if you ALREADY KNEW that the Henkin semantics was
not
second-order, THEN YOU SHOULD NEVER have claimed that it provided
"a generalized model theory for second-order languages".
THAT IS JUST BULL***.
What it DOES provide is a TRUNCATED FIRST-order model theory
for second-order languages. Or, if model theory is inherently in
first-
order ZFC or something like it, it is that first-order THING's LAME
attempt
to SOMEhow make itself relevant to some second-order consideration.

PRECISELY BECAUSE it is basically equivalent to something first-order,
THE HENKIN SEMANTICS IS NOT WORTHY OF THE SLIGHTEST
consideration OR MENTION in the context of this conversation.
The fact that you didn't know THAT makes whatever OTHER truths
you may have asserted, or errors you may have identified, COMPLETELY
irrelevant.
.

Quantcast