On Oct 14, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> Chris you remain much too annoying and rude to waste any further time on. (01)
Facts and sound arguments can indeed be exceedingly annoying. I do, however,
try to keep my rudeness proportional to the grandiloquence of the posts I'm
replying to. (02)
> Discuss it with others on the list who can put up with your ignorant
>assertion of the commonplace. (03)
Your charge of ignorance has no basis in actual argument. I have pointed out
any number of falsehoods and errors in your claims about Gödel's theorems, most
of which have been corroborated and expanded upon by several respected members
of the list, and I have provided fairly detailed exposition of relevant aspects
of Gödel's actual results, none of which has been challenged or even qualified
by any of our resident experts. The same, moreover, cannot be said of your own
contributions. (04)
> I am out. (05)
Hopefully that applies to any further claims about Gödel's theorem and
mathematical logic generally. (06)
-chris (07)
> -----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 (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)
|