TonesInDeepFreeze

You're reiterating your claim as you made it at the start of this round. So, I'll reiterate: "Jack is happy" is grammatical even when the speaker misu...

I'm not talking about guessing what post was quoted. I'm talking about the fact that it is ridiculous to expect a reader to factor in the peculiaritie...

Merriam : grammar : the study of the classes of words, their inflections (see inflection sense 2), and their functions and relations in the sentence :...

Whether it was three decades ago or three seconds ago, it is not proper to display someone's quotes with emphases they didn't use unless you indicate ...

What? You don't know how "" works? My original did not have bold. You added bold to my quote. When you do that, you should include a note that you add...

Now, you're arguing by reiteration of your claim. When it comes full circle like that more than once, rational discussion is diminished.

Right, my typo.

When you add emphases (such as bold or italics) to my quotes, you should indicate that the emphases were added.

Syntax and grammar are synonymous in some contexts and nearly synonymous in others. Semantics stands opposed to them. Look it up.

If people have different concepts of rationality, then they may differ as to what laws of thought they adhere to, thus there are laws of thought that ...

It's interesting that you say that. Because it is very wrong. Semantics concerns the meanings of words. Syntax (grammer) concerns the rules for format...

My mistake about 'adjective'; I do know that it is an adverb. But there's another example: "'literally' is an adjective" is grammatical, even though f...

Ah, how conveniently you left out 'semantically'. It is wrong semantically, as it uses the wrong meanings of the words. It is semantically wrong, but ...

But not ungrammatically. "My cat is black" is grammatical even though it is false and the speaker meant that his dog is white. You keep evading that v...

By syntactical, I mean grammatical. "Bob has a red French horn" is grammatical, even though it is false and even though Bob is misusing the word 'red'...

But you start out by mentioning logic in general, thus giving the impression that systems in general are incomplete, thus adding to the general confus...

Thank you.

More exactly, I said they may be regarded as objects, and that we may discuss in what sense they are or are not objects. But the crank runs all over t...

I explicitly said that I do not claim platonism. And I explicitly said that I am not advocating any particular sense of the notion of object. And I ev...

The lying crank wrote, "Tones is arguing that rules are Platonic objects just like numbers are." That's yet another of the crank's lies about me. The ...

Thank you for that cite. That's interesting.

Again, you bring up someone else's quote, and it turns out that it contrasts with your post on account of the quote being fairly clear, though it is i...

Regarding constructivism, we were talking about the law of identity. What are some criticisms in mathematics of the identity of indiscernibles? (Of co...

Here's a proof: Definition: .999... = lim(k = 1 to inf) SUM(j = 1 to k) 9/(10^j). Let f(k) = SUM(j = 1 to k) 9/(10^j). Show that lim(k = 1 to inf) f(k...

It's handwaving. The argument invokes an utterly undefined notion. It's a garbage argument as far as mathematics goes. And it doesn't even have explan...

I have no comment about the other poster in this context. But I am glad that I made my quite relevant point that rules also may be regarded as mathema...

Unlike your post, that quote seems at least fairly clear and doesn't make an overbroad mischaracterization of incompleteness.

What is regarded as rational may be different for different people. And people may choose even to think irrationally by any standard. But, of course, ...

No, you said that the only law that "withstands scrutiny" for constructivism is non-contradiction. And that is false.

Grammar doesn't dictate what is true or false, only what is well formed. "I was literally dying" is well formed even if untrue. "Bob's French horn is ...

The way it read was that there are laws of logic that may be broken but not laws of thought. But if any law of logic may be also a law of thought, the...

What does 'speak wrongly' mean? Speak ungrammatically or speak falsely? Of course it is possible to use the wrong word and still be grammatical. Peopl...

Yet you cited one. I thought you might have intended some point about logic. Good to know that you didn't.

No, 'literally' there is not violating the syntactical role of an adjective. And at this point, you are merely arguing by reiteration of your assertio...

I didn't write '1h'.

"What it does" meaning its syntactical role, yes. "What it means", no. If I think 'red' means 'loud' and I say "The trombone is red", then still "The ...

The law of identity is allowed by constructivism. It "withstands foundational scrutiny" by constructivism. No strawman.

Inference rules may be rigorously defined as relations on the power set of the finite set of formulas cross the set of formulas. So, if sets are mathe...

That's not a proof. It's handwaving by using an undefined operation of subtraction involving infinite sequences. Actual proofs are available though.

No, it depends on what is meant by '...'. In ordinary mathematics, '...' in that context refers to the limit of a certain sequence, and we prove that ...

That is ridiculously overbroad and vague.

My point was that the incompleteness theorem is not a conjecture. / I take it that 'postulates' means axioms. For every sentence, there is a system of...

I'm just telling you what the definition is. It doesn't matter what you think "should" be or what "needs" to be. The definition of 'decidable' is not ...

There are two different things: (1) The incompleteness theorem. It's not a conjecture. It is proven. It is a theorem about certain kinds of object the...

The differences between the Godel sentence and "this is a statement and this is not provable"? The Godel sentence is a sentence in the language of ari...

Half is humble, since my knowledge of modern logic is not extensive relative to people who study it a lot more intensely (though vastly greater than c...

That is not the Godel sentence.

The incompleteness theorem does not rely on any sentences that can't be formed in the language of arithmetic.

Regarding the liar sentence, what postulates?