Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Simply defining =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=B6del?= Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:33:00 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 55 Message-ID: <878sf8so7n.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <871rl8dyg1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87lfjfovhm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87zh7tok63.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <6MednYs8F9v7qYvCnZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lfjcmg9p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87tuxzkswv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <20200724092713.661@kylheku.com> <87d04ksqqa.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fba0b9dd314d56b7e4e59a2cab964ccd"; logging-data="15408"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX184qJl0HG26BSziqesP3U6T" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:V6opmukrJXm7PZEh9iXcnzrOgdM= sha1:AfJixCokYr6+ZsfKy062zYUxj1g= Xref: csiph.com comp.theory:21888 olcott writes: > On 7/24/2020 1:38 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> olcott writes: >>> On 7/24/2020 1:06 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>> On 7/24/2020 10:31 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2020-07-24, olcott wrote: >>>>>> OK great I carefully studied that part and totally understand it. When >>>>>> we get to the next part where a denumerable sequence (s1,s2,s3,...) is >>>>>> said to satisfy a two place predicate, I don't get it. If you need an >>>>>> ordered pair to satisfy a relation then you really need a set of ordered >>>>>> pairs not a set of elements. >>>>> >>>>> Because, like, the word "element" could never refer to an ordered pair. >>>>> >>>>> If you have a set, if it contains ordered pairs, you must not use the >>>>> word "elements", only "members". >>>>> >>>>> You heard it here, folks! >>>> >>>> Not sure this is correct. Consider the sentence "The elements of set >>>> S are order pairs." I believe that I've heard and read such >>>> phraseology many many times. "element of" is simply the way to >>>> vocalize that little e=like symbol in formulas. >>> >>> You are correct, Kaz was wrong. >> >> Kaz can speak for himself, but I'm fairly sure he was being sarcastic. >> > > If he phrased his "sarcasm" in this way (without any sarcastic tone) > then his "sarcasm" was deceptive. Because, like, the word "element" could never refer to an ordered pair. If you have a set, if it contains ordered pairs, you must not use the word "elements", only "members". You heard it here, folks! I'm not sure how his tone could have been more sarcastic than that. > On 7/24/2020 11:31 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> If you have a set, if it contains ordered pairs, you must not use the >> word "elements", only "members". > > I would prefer to think of Kaz as mistaken instead of a liar. Being sarcastic doesn't make someone a liar. You missed the tone of what he wrote. It happens. Stop digging. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */