Re: nothing anyone would want to read (or: crank boxing (or: the death of the dance))

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:41:50 -0800 (PST), galathaea
<galathaea@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 17, 1:23 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 17, 1:00 pm, galathaea <galath...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 17, 12:41 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Please state EXACTLY what you think is incorrect in Jesse's
demonstration and also with my own demonstration that tommy1729's (or
whatever his name was then) theory at that time is inconsistent.

it started with his first step
  that [x] might be defined as

forAll(x) forAll(y) (y in [x] <-> y = x)

which is already basically assuming what he wanted to show
(that his derivation would arrive at contradiction)

If that is not tommy1729's definition, then tommy1729 is welcome to
say exactly what his definition is. Moreover, later, tommy1729 himself
said virtually tantamount to the definition you just wrote.

And in my own remarks, as I recall, I stated that unless tommy1729
states a definition, I can only surmise what it is or might be. Later,
as I recall, tommy1729 did affirm (in whatever his own words) that
with x = [x] we get x in x. And in any case, if you go back to my
actual remarks, you will see how I specifically showed that his theory
is inconsistent, based specifically on what tommy1729 wrote as the
description of his theory.

yay!

moeblee thinks:
if x in [x]
then all y in [x] must equal x!

Huh? There's no evidence here that that's what he thinks.
Instead it looks like he thinks that [x] denotes a set with
x as its only element (y in [x] if and only if y = x).

What else would one imagine the notation [x] would
mean, in a supposed set theory?

You might note that at the time many people asked him
for the _definition_ of [x] and he simply never provided one.

And yes, your bizarre ravings nothwithstanding, refusing
to define one's terms is a very reliable crackpot indicator.

for someone constantly worrying
about people putting words in their mouth
you sure do spew a lot of crap out of there on your own

and you also seem to do the same thing
(put words in peoples mouths)
to those you attack

particularly those you attack as pathetic

you're doing excellent moeblee...

better than expected...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar

David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: nothing anyone would want to read (or: crank boxing (or: the death of the dance))
    ... whatever his name was then) theory at that time is inconsistent. ... And in my own remarks, as I recall, I stated that unless tommy1729 ... (put words in peoples mouths) ... particularly those you attack as pathetic ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: nothing anyone would want to read (or: crank boxing (or: the death of the dance))
    ... whatever his name was then) theory at that time is inconsistent. ... so a textbook reading might be: ... what is bizarre ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Excel is faulty
    ... Ullrich wrote: ... You didn't mean the result is inconsistent ... in Excel to get -1 if that's what's intended. ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
    ... Godel ends up proving maths is inconsistent by useing maths. ... axioms of mathematics. ... impredicative definitions ordained him to get. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Congrats to Ireland A
    ... But I will suggest to you that its subtly inconsistent to say someone is ... If you'd seen the game which you blatantly have not, then you'd know that on a couple of occasions the attack was so clinical that it wouldn't have mattered what the defenders did. ... You chop and change more often than Manure changes ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)
Loading