From Newsgroup: sci.logic
On 1/1/26 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:
*When we analyze this one statement made in isolation*
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability.-a rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
G asserts its own unprovability.
Only in its interpretation.
I guess you are just showing you don't understand "Context"
A Text taken out of its Context is just a pretext.
G asserts that there are no sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
ONLY in its interpreation, and that is only in the meta.
Nothing can prove that itself does not exist.
Any such proof would be self-refuting.
Sure it can. when you have the difference of CONTEXT.
G, compbined with the informatino in the Meta-System, has the
information needed to prove that G can not be proven in the base system
Of course, you are too stupid to understand that meaning is based on
context, because "meaning" doesn't have meaning to you, nor does
"truth", because you feel the need to redefine it.
G||del, Kurt 1931.
On Formally Undecidable Propositions of
Principia Mathematica And Related Systems
Rigth, so READ the FULL text and point to an error.
Of course, the problem is you are just to ignorant and closed minded to undetstand it.
You are just showing that you are just a stupid and ignorant
pathological liar that doesn't even care about what truth is, but feel
the need to push your LIES because you just can't handle the truth.
That is why you think it is ok for you to possess and watch child porn, because you think you are "God", you world is just that messed up.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2