Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.logic    |    Logic -- math, philosophy & computationa    |    262,912 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 261,898 of 262,912    |
|    Mikko to polcott    |
|    Re: A new category of thought    |
|    14 Dec 25 13:02:40    |
      XPost: comp.theory, sci.math       From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi              On 09/12/2025 20:04, polcott wrote:       > On 12/9/2025 7:15 AM, Mikko wrote:       >>> On 12/7/2025 4:39 AM, Mikko wrote:       >>>> olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.24:       >>>>> On 12/6/2025 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:       >>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 18.41:       >>>>>>> On 12/5/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:       >>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.59:       >>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:41 AM, Mikko wrote:       >>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 16.00:       >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2025 5:02 AM, Mikko wrote:       >>       >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that is the exxential difference between the two G's.       >>>>>>>>>>>> The expession F ⊬ G has a truth value because it is either       >>>>>>>>>>>> true or false       >>       >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 1.12.2025 klo 19.15:       >>       >>>>>>>>>>> I propose that is a false assumption.       >>       >> >>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:       >>       >>>>>>>>>> If you want to propose anygthng like that you should       >>>>>>>>>> (a) specify what is the assumption you want to propose as false       >>>>>>>>>> (b) why should that assumption be considered false       >>>>>>>>>> (c) what assumption would be true or at least less obviously       >>>>>>>>>> false       >>       >> olcott kirjoitti 7.12.2025 klo 16.59:       >>       >>> (a) specify what is the assumption you want to propose as false       >>       >>> That Gödel 1931 Incompleteness exists as anything       >>> besides a misconception.       >>       >> That does not make sense. Quite obviously Gödel's incompleteness is not       >> mentioned in the scope where that can refer.       >       > Actually I proved that every instance of pathological       > self-reference involves an incoherent decision problem       > instance.              Your "involves" does not mean anything other than "can be associated       with", or at least you havn't proven anything else about it. But       everything can "involve" an incoherent problem instance. That does       not mean that everything exists only as a misconceptions.              --       Mikko              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca