Banno

"So that you can ask silly questions."

No; I call someone who says that folk should pay for the consequences of their choices libertarian.

Why? Isn't that just special pleading? Yes, in the example argument above, Z is shown to imply a contradiction, and so is to be rejected. That's the r...

I'm re-thinking it. Is it like triangles with four sides, or is it like \sqrt{-1}?

To all reductio arguments?

Is it like a square circle? A triangle with four sides? A mere concatenation of words that can't be given form, cannot be constructed or worked with?

SO there is no identifiable flaw in the argument, yet it is wrong as a whole? Does this apply generally? Are all supposed reductio arguments so flawed...

Sure, all that. But even to say that is to presume that some sentences are true - " the hearer can all to easily interpret a sentence as saying someth...

Here it is again: I've bolded the assumption for you. It leads directly to the contradiction I've italicised. Where's the flaw?

You keep saying that. Sure. Turing's argument is not an example of that. It is a reductio. Reductio ad absurdum. At least acknowledge that.

Oh, good. So we agree that at least some of what science says is true. Turned out nice again, didn't it?

...supposedly the difference is used to help offset the cost of treating the resulting cancer. It's not legislating morality, so much as user-pays. Al...

I, and most logicians, agree that and yet see the argument as valid. Do you agree that the argument is a reductio? If not, what structure does it have...

any branch of knowledge is truth as it is revealed to us? Are we talking about oysters again? You can't taste oysters without using your tongue, and s...

What's that, then?

Again, it just seems to me that you have misunderstood the structure of Turing's argument.

When an assumption leads to a contradiction, the assumption must be rejected. Assume that there is a solution to the halting problem. Show that this l...

But that's not right, since here's a thread about nothingness. Something is going on here, to do with nothingness. The folk posting here have somethin...

It's a reductio. The contradiction you point to is a direct consequence of assuming that the halting problem can be solved. It is what shows that the ...

So you can't have the very large stuff but you can have the small stuff? Then don't worry about the very large stuff. Some sentences are true. Any epi...

There's little honour left in these fora. Yes, you can't have a plane euclidian shape that is both a square and a circle. And yes, this is because the...

Sometimes we think we know things that are not true. We can't know something that is not true. When we think we know things that are not true, we are ...

SO facts are true. Well, there's that on which we might agree. and seem to know things that are not true. Tim is unhappy with small truths, wanting al...

Scientists, like everyone else, do make use of notions of truth. That dropped objects accelerate at around about 9.8 m/s², that plants need light to p...

I think you have some interesting stuff here, but you haven't demonstrated an error in Gödel or Turing.

it's a pretty cool result that leads on to Gödel's incompleteness and Turing's halting problem.

If you would show that a well-accepted and well-understood part of logic is in error, you will need a good deal of strong, formal argument to carry yo...

Ok. What I am saying is much the same as you received elsewhere: ...and so on. I don't think it's just me.

I give up. My conclusion is that you're unable to present your thesis in a manner that is sufficiently clear to be evaluated.

All I'm asking is where Carol's question occurs. Sure, show me in C.

This is pointless. SO, Z? It shouldn't be this hard. I'm just checking that I've understood your point.

Your claim is that some equivalent of Carol's question occurs in the halting program proof. It's not unreasonable to ask you to show where it occurs.

IS this the equivalent of Carol's question? If not, what is?

Your last few replies do not seem to be addressed to my point. Your question occurs with Z, not with H. Z is problematic, but Z is also a consequence ...

Have a think on it again. You have shown that Z is problematic. Sure, it is. That's what shows that H is impossible.

You've moved back from Gödel to the halting problem. Ok. So check this out: This is a reductio argument: Assume there is a program Halt Show that Halt...

Cantor beat you to it.

I think you are wasting my time.

. ok. Next.

Well, no. I’m pointing out that you only have a problem here if you restrict yourself to yes/no with no revision. Go on. But be brief. You seem to be ...

But that's not right - you've been given several correct answers.

I can't work out what that means. So {epistemological antinomies} (why the curly brackets?) are, for example, the liar. Where is there an example of t...

I've answered that. Here's where we are up to: can you explain how you reject diagonalisation for Gödel but not for Cantor? Or do you reject Cantor's ...

I don't see this conversation progressing.

Well, we've dealt with that already, and as showed, it's problematic for you to insist on a yes or no answer. But there are various ways of dealing wi...

So again, for consistency, mustn't you also reject Cantor's Diagonal argument as well?

There are issues here as well, since a question is not the sort of thing that is apt to contradiction. A pair of statements can contradict; some state...

Perhaps this indicates that there is a problem with the approach you have taken. After all, what I said above is the case; that is the reason for the ...

The reason that the halting problem persists is that the number of possible Turing machines is not enumerable; but any Turing machine designed to chec...

That post doesn't tell me anything.