ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] HOL decidability [Was: using SKOS forcontrolledvalue

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:13:07 -0700
Message-id: <20101014181310.2537A138D1A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Chris you remain much too annoying and rude to waste any further time on.
Discuss it with others on the list who can put up with your ignorant
assertion of the commonplace.  I am out.      (01)

-Rich    (02)

Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2    (03)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christopher
Menzel
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:52 AM
To: [ontolog-forum] 
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] HOL decidability [Was: using SKOS
forcontrolledvalues for controlledvocabulary]    (04)

On Oct 14, 2010, at 12:15 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> Hi Doug,
>  
> Thanks for you post, you seem to be honestly trying to understand what I
meant by the statement "there is no function that can iterate the primes",
and perhaps I should have originally said "directly, without iterating other
types", which seems to have set off this mess.  But I expected Menzel to
make an honest answer instead of an ad hominem attack.      (05)

I apologize for the *ad hominem* elements of my response, but I gave a very
detailed, "good-faith" critique of all of your claims about Gödel's theorem
and its proof.  I have to admit to having very little patience for people
who misrepresent Gödel's work -- which you did, several times, particularly
in your claim about Gödel's results all being "based on the primes", a claim
you have yet to acknowledge as bogus.  I would have no problem at all
engaging in a more cool-headed way over the meaning of the term "iterate".
Unfortunately, you still seem to think that the fact that "there is no
iterator of [the primes]", in your sense of "iterator", is somehow connected
to Gödel's theorem.  It simply isn't, and the fact that you don't see it
means that you don't understand the theorem or its proof.    (06)

-chris    (07)


_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (08)



_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (09)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>