Discussion:
Credit where credit is due to : exflaso.quodlibet
Add Reply
peteolcott
2018-11-02 03:00:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I keep thinking that my: Liar Paradox / Incompleteness / Undefinabilty
proof has been perfected and then make other improvements.

The current improvements deserve very significant credit to one USENET
sci.logic reviewer: exflaso.quodlibet **

Although I made the adaptations myself, this reviewer helped me correct
my syntax: My propositional variable was not bound to a quantifier.
They also suggested getting rid the reference to the language F, making
this syntax simpler, and suggested converting my Theorem() predicate to
⊢ making my notation much more concise and consistent with math conventions.

** A slight misspelling of the Latin: ex falso quodlibet
The principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso (sequitur) quodlibet (EFQ), "from falsehood, anything (follows)"

http://LiarParadox.org/

A copy of this page has been posted to the Facebook group:
Formal Analysis of the Liar Paradox

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1851548975084571/?ref=group_header
Franz Gnaedinger
2018-11-02 08:17:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by peteolcott
I keep thinking that my: Liar Paradox / Incompleteness / Undefinabilty
proof has been perfected and then make other improvements.
The current improvements deserve very significant credit to one USENET
sci.logic reviewer: exflaso.quodlibet **
Although I made the adaptations myself, this reviewer helped me correct
my syntax: My propositional variable was not bound to a quantifier.
They also suggested getting rid the reference to the language F, making
this syntax simpler, and suggested converting my Theorem() predicate to
⊢ making my notation much more concise and consistent with math conventions.
** A slight misspelling of the Latin: ex falso quodlibet
The principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso (sequitur) quodlibet (EFQ), "from falsehood, anything (follows)"
Ex falso quodlibet - dismiss a proven theorem of mathematical logic and you
can claim anything, only that all is worthless, for example the claims Peter
Olcott made in sci.lang: he knows the absolute and complete and total truth,
he is the author of life and creator of life, he has hundred reasons to believe
that he is God, he creates our future minds in order that we can go on existing,
he is a human being and God in personal union, he is the one Creator of the
Universe - but he made a big mistake, as creator of the universe and life
he also created Goedel and must now spend his human existence on correcting
him: Goedel was wrong, Turing was wrong, Allgod is right ... If you wish to
see how a few hyperkooks ruin the formerly most visited forum, go to sci.math,
and if you wish to know how one single hyperkook ruins a once lively forum
all on his own, go to

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Loading...