Rich (01)
Please include me as a proud member on your list of ignorant asserters of the
commonplace. Thank you. (02)
Bill (03)
On Oct 14, 2010, at 14:13, "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (04)
> 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.
>
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>
> -----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]
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> -chris
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|