.ll 72 .fo off .co on .ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer)) .ce ADR - 394 .ce .ce Copyright (C) Homer Wilson Smith .ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes ======================================================================== 67 Date: Thu, 20 Jul 89 13:17:21 EDT From: HomerSubject: Re: double think To: Adore-l list In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 17 Jul 89 14:39:52 EDT from > >I am fully versed in the first and second order predicate and >propositional logics. I should have known. Now I am in deeeeeep trouble. I should point out that I am NOT well versed in second order predicate and propositional logics, in fact I can hardly pronounce the words. > >Your premise is ~p [nothing can be proven] > >Given: ~p > ~p -> p > p Let p mean 'Something can be proven.' Let not-p mean 'Nothing can be proven.' (its not true something can...) Let r mean 'not-p is proven'. Norman claims my arguement states that not-p implies p. In English that reads, If 'nothing can be proven' then 'something can be proven'. Clearly this is neither a tautology nor is it obviously true. And I never made the statement and I never used it in any proof on this subject. The state I made was If not-p is PROVEN then p. (If r then p.) This is very different from If not-p is TRUE then p. not-p might very well be true, this does not give rise to a contradiction in itself. All I have said is that If not-p is true then not-p can not be PROVEN. and If not-p is proven, then p. And THAT CAN be proven. Thus not-p is false. (Because of the one counter example.) For sure. I await Norman's rapier analysis, except he is sulking licking his wounds off the list. My condolences. Homer Adore-l list 7/20/89*double think