Re: Fitch's paradox and OWA
From: Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen_at_shaw.ca>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:13:31 -0700
Message-ID: <vJ6%m.364$rH7.347_at_newsfe19.iad>
>
> Your point is still wrong.
>
> Your conclusion is also still wrong, unsurprisingly.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:13:31 -0700
Message-ID: <vJ6%m.364$rH7.347_at_newsfe19.iad>
Marshall wrote:
> On Dec 31, 12:18 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu..._at_shaw.ca> wrote:
>> My point still stands: if it's _impossible_ (as opposed to just being difficult) >> to assign truth values to a formula then the formula is neither true nor false,
>
> Your point is still wrong.
Why? Are you saying all formulas (written in the language of arithmetic) must
have to be truth-definable? Do you have a reason so? Or are you just saying
that - as usual it seems?
>
>
>> which means that collectively the naturals isn't a _complete_ model of Q or its >> extensions.
>
> Your conclusion is also still wrong, unsurprisingly.
What isn't unsurprising is your "refute" does have any technical details to back it up.
Sigh! Does every technical debate have to be personal fight of sort to you? Received on Thu Dec 31 2009 - 20:13:31 CET