XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: 046-301-5902@kylheku.com   
      
   On 2025-11-29, olcott  wrote:   
   > On 5/25/2021 11:56 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >> In Message ID , Peter   
   >> Olcott admits that he's wrong according to "conventional analysis" and that   
   >> discussing with him requires following some "unconventional"   
   >> analysis.   
   >>   
   >> PO: I understand where you are coming from. I am coming from somewhere else.   
   >> PO: If you analyze what I am saying using conventional analysis then what I   
   >> PO: am saying is incorrect.   
   >>   
   >> "Conventional analysis" is the only vessel which lets us sail into every   
   >> imaginable universe such that we can be sure of anything. Those   
   >> universes are the only "somewhere elses" we need.   
   >   
   > *Kaz cannot think outside the box*   
      
   Nope; I don't want to think outside of the correctness box,   
   if I can help it. Only by accident.   
      
   The box where I exactly understand the definition of the problem   
   and all of its constraints, so that I'm addressing myself to the   
   problem and not something sort of resembling it, and the box in which   
   I avoid magical/wishful thinking.   
      
   > Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, named after mathematicians Ernst Zermelo   
   > and Abraham Fraenkel   
   > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory   
   >   
   > Could think outside the box, otherwise Russell's Paradox   
   > would still prove undecidability.   
      
   1. Meaningless appeal to authority.   
      
   2. While we are appealing to authorities, you are not worth a pimple   
   on the ass of these gentlemen. What it means for you to think outside   
   the box is qualitatively different from how they thought outside of   
   the box.   
      
   >> PO: The whole diagonalization thing is gibberish to me unless it only shows   
      
   Great, quote yourself being an idiot some years ago! Yay!   
      
   > Welcome to SWI-Prolog (threaded, 64 bits, version 7.6.4)   
   > SWI-Prolog comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software.   
   > Please run ?- license. for legal details.   
   >   
   > % This sentence is not true.   
   > ?- LP = not(true(LP)).   
      
   Not an example of diagonalization; the Liar Paradox is not   
   a diagonal argument.   
      
   Diagonal arguemnts patterned after Cantor do not exhibit   
   a problem that is analogous to the Liar Paradox.   
      
   So, indeed, yes, the "whole diagonalization thing is gibberish" to you.   
      
   Or should we say, it is outside of your tiny box.   
      
   --   
   TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr   
   Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal   
   Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)