Re: Fitch's paradox and OWA
From: Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen_at_shaw.ca>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:16:52 -0700
Message-ID: <EM6%m.365$rH7.340_at_newsfe19.iad>
> Marshall wrote:
>
> Why? Are you saying all formulas (written in the language of arithmetic)
> must
> have to be truth-definable? Do you have a reason so? Or are you just saying
> that - as usual it seems?
>
>
> What isn't unsurprising is your "refute" does have any technical details
> to back it up.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:16:52 -0700
Message-ID: <EM6%m.365$rH7.340_at_newsfe19.iad>
Nam Nguyen wrote:
> 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.
I meant "What is unsurprising ..."
>
> Sigh! Does every technical debate have to be personal fight of sort to you?
Received on Thu Dec 31 2009 - 20:16:52 CET