Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.ai.nat-lang, sci.lang.semantics |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 (axiomatic basis of truth) |
| Date | 2020-07-05 20:46 -0600 |
| Organization | Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism |
| Message-ID | <rdu39e$i6n$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (12 earlier) <XZednQ6FvN2kqp_CnZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <rdte6g$ts$1@dont-email.me> <KK6dnaA0KPP-3J_CnZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <d884fc00-3310-45d1-a032-4d1816a24f55o@googlegroups.com> <l_ydnZRkoLaExJ_CnZ2dnUU7-RnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
On 2020-07-05 16:50, olcott wrote: > On 7/5/2020 5:28 PM, David Kleinecke wrote: >> On Sunday, July 5, 2020 at 2:08:57 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote: >>> >>> The strong version says that language determines thought and that >>> linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories. >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity >>> >>> In order to use the term "incompleteness" correctly and not as misnomer >>> (relative to its common meaning) a thing must be lacking some part. >>> >>> incomplete[ in-kuhm-pleet ] adjective not complete; lacking some part. >>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/incomplete Of course, that site gives 4 distinct definitions for the adjective "sound". Why do you ignore the other 3? >> The point of view (Hilbert's) where this started was that every true >> fact was provable. That is, what was being contemplated was the set >> of all provable propositions. The set was complete - all were there. >> Then Goedel showed that that there were propositions that were true >> but not provable. Obviously that meant the original set was not >> complete - that is, it was incomplete. > > > Then Goedel showed that that there were propositions that were true > > but not provable. > > He could not have possibly shown this because the lack of provability > makes the expression unsound thus untrue. That's not what 'unsound' means. According to dictionary.com, sound means "the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium." Obviously, by your reason, any use of 'sound' must conform to the above. Yours does not. And, by the rules of Newspeak, an 'unsound' would simply be that which is not a sound, i.e. silence. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-04 11:36 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-04 12:21 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-04 16:28 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-05 07:17 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-05 10:31 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-05 10:28 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-05 11:42 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-05 10:53 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-05 13:38 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-05 12:44 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-05 13:56 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-05 13:16 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-05 15:25 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-05 14:46 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-05 16:08 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-05 15:28 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 (axiomatic basis of truth) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-05 17:50 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 (axiomatic basis of truth) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-05 17:13 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 (axiomatic basis of truth) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-05 20:37 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 (axiomatic basis of truth) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-05 20:46 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-04 17:39 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V21 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-05 13:15 -0500
csiph-web