TonesInDeepFreeze

That book gets important technical points wrong and it's a deplorably tendentious hatchet job. (I don't have the book, and it's been a long time since...

What? It's not at all hard for me. I did it a few posts ago! Please let me know that you see it now so that I may know that I'm not posting to an insa...

To repeat, since you skipped this:

Every contradiction is false in every model. So what? Meanwhile, it is a theorem of first order logic that there is not an x such that for all y, y be...

That is a question that could be asked only by someone unfamiliar with the basics of this subject. If P is a closed formula, then there is a system S ...

You don't know the actual nature of the "self-reference" in Godel's proof. The proof may be formulated in finite combinatorial arithmetic. If you have...

You did all that and managed still not to know what Godel's theorem is. It's not required for pointing out that you don't know what Godel's theorem is...

For a video such as this, the very first words should be: "I'm going to give you an extremely simplified version of some very complicated mathematics....

That is not at all a reasonable summary of Godel's theorem. Just to start: languages are not what are complete or incomplete, but rather theories are ...

Visual gimmicks and props are not required. One can give a talk orally and with supporting text and/or non-gimmicky visuals. And I don't even object t...

That's not Godel's theorem. You don't know what Godel's theorem is. Previously asked:

It oversimplifies to the point of being terribly misleading. One glaring mistake is not recognizing that undecidability follows immediately from incom...

Where did you read that?

So, according to you, a necessary condition for making sense of your idea is thinking spiritually. But meanwhile a necessary condition for making sens...

Yes, nice article. I should revise what I said. Maybe something like this (not necessarily in this order): (1) Creating new systems. (2) Ingeniously p...

The latter. I guarantee it.

From that it is apparent that you don't know what Godel's theorem is. Your commentary is relevant to what you think Godel's theorem is but not relevan...

You wrote 'Russel' twice. It's 'Russell'.

Tracking recent points Metaphysician Undercover has either evaded or failed to recognize that he was mistaken. As previous: https://thephilosophyforum...

In a realist sense, whatever the mathematician's or philosopher's concept of mathematical realism. In particular, many mathematicians believe that the...

It is, at best, ambiguous whether the third 'you' applies only to fishfry or "fishry and Tones alike". If you meant to be clear, then you would have b...

There are mathematicians and philosophers who do claim that mathematics states metaphysical (platonic, or however it may be couched) truths. There are...

I said 'important aspect'. I don't see anything "weaselly" about that. What you said is: I didn't claim that you said "all" or "most". Rather, I share...

A logical fallacy is an improper argument form. You've not shown any fallacy in mathematics. Of course, you may reject the axioms, and you may reject ...

Said yet another way: Saying (1) "there is not one particular ordering that is 'the inherent ordering'" is not saying (2) "there is no ordering".

Devising new frameworks and systems is an important aspect of creativity in mathematics. But, while I can't properly quantify, it seems to me that mos...

Metaphysician Undercover with the same dishonest claim: (1) Again, I have said at least a few times already that sets have orderings. Sets of cardinal...

Now more of the ignorance and confusion of Metaphysician Undercover: I'm not asking you what particular bad things you think will happen, but what kin...

Next, a break to repeat a question:

Next, Metaphysician Undercover's trolling: I pointed out that continually you mention me without stating the context or quotes, thus making it seem th...

We still have this list of corrections, challenges, and questions that Metaphysician Undercover has not answered: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discu...

Do you recognize that the word 'tree' is not a tree? That the word 'Chicago' is not the city of Chicago? That the word 'courageousness' is not the atr...

Reminding again, more of the recent points you have failed on: / And new ones: / Also, you continue to mention me sometimes without quote or context, ...

First thing I really want to know what are the bad things that you think mathematicians and scientists are going to cause to happen? What bad things d...

First, of course, is that we may take a collection of dots as given, without stipulating that a particular person placed the dots herself. Second, let...

You are mentioning me yet again, without quotation or context. This is about the fifth time you've done it. I never claimed that we can count things t...

You are obfuscating by sliding between adressing "order" and "actual order" (or "inherent order"). That's typical of your intellectual sloppiness. It ...

I have a hunch about cranks in logic and mathematics. It's not something I can prove, but it seems to me to be a plausible narrative: The crank is not...

P.S. It's ironic that if you knew any mathematics, you could have given an answer: <b c> is before <d f> if and only if (b < d or (b = d and c < f)). ...

That's a beauty.

Dollars to donuts that, without copy/paste from Wikipedia, you could not in your own words state the distinction bewteen syntax and semantics and the ...

I didn't need a teacher to make me aware that numerals are not numbers. '2' and 'two' refer to the same thing. But '2' is not 'two'. So whatever they ...

And we are so lucky that people who did actually go on to learn mathematics were not arrested in development as you are. You wouldn't be typing on you...

Actually it doesn't make initial sense. Moving from one letter to the next is always a whole step, except from B to C and from E to F. And then double...

Mathematics is the opposite of religion. In another post I completely demolished the comparison.

Whatever your personal meaning of "reality", or lack of meaning, might be. Meanwhile, you're not even familiar with the distinction between semantics ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543934 I checked one of Yang's website. It says anyone over 18. But in an interview on Freakonimics ...

That the subject at first makes little sense is probably usually true. And it's true for me for many different subjects. But symbolic logic is one sub...

Andrew Yang's proposal is for UBI to go to all and only 18-64 year olds. That makes no sense and is shockingly reactionary. Bezos makes nearly 4k/SECO...

Falsity is semantic; inconsistency is syntactical. Given a model M of a theory T, a sentence may be false in M but not inconsistent with T. Formulas d...