Re: Fitch's paradox and OWA

From: Nam Nguyen <>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:21:44 -0700
Message-ID: <cR6%m.366$rH7.262_at_newsfe19.iad>

Nam Nguyen wrote:

> Marshall wrote:
>> On Dec 31, 12:18 am, Nam Nguyen <> 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 do hate typo; and here's the correct version:

"What is unsurprising is your "refute" doesn't 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 - 20:21:44 CET

Original text of this message