Velocity Reviews > Re: I'm too stupid for mailing lists.

# Re: I'm too stupid for mailing lists.

Sulfolobus Epamella Diarizonae
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-05-2005
Liam Slider, <(E-Mail Removed)>, the perspiring, scoundrelly mare,
and robber who preys on public roads, contrived:

> This is a lie.

That lie is true.

Proof. Given a computably generated set of axioms, let PROVABLE be the set
of numbers to encode sentences that are provable from the given axioms.

Let /s/ = any sentence
Let /P/ - PROVABLE

Let "This sentence is unprovable" be notionally equivalent to "This is a
lie."

Thus for any sentence /s/,

1) < /s/ > is in /P/ iff /s/ is provable.

Since the set of axioms is computably generable;

So is the set of proofs which use these axioms;
So is the set of provable theorems and hence;
So is /P/, the set of encodings of provable theorems.

Since computable implies definable in adequate theories, /P/
can be defined. /P/ is definable.

Let /s/ be the sentence "This sentence is unprovable".
By Tarski, /s/ exists since it is the solution of:
2) /s/ iff < /s/ > is not in /P/.
Thus
3) /s/ iff < /s/ > is not in /P/ iff /s/ is not provable.

Applying excluded middle, /s/ is either true or false.

If /s/ is false, then by 3), /s/ is provable.
That is impossible because provable sentences are true.
Thus /s/ is true.
Thus by 3), /s/ is not provable.
Hence /s/ is true but unprovable.

For Tarski's Lemma, see
http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/god...#SelfReference
Reference algorithm:
http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/god...Incompleteness

Kutloze Scheefgepoepte
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-05-2005
"Sulfolobus Epamella Diarizonae"
<(E-Mail Removed)-encompassing-apprenticed-canker-blossom.org>
wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)-fingered-self-seeded-mouse.com
> Liam Slider, <(E-Mail Removed)>, the perspiring,
> scoundrelly mare, and robber who preys on public roads, contrived:
>
>
>> This is a lie.

>
> That lie is true.
>
> Proof. Given a computably generated set of axioms, let PROVABLE be
> the set of numbers to encode sentences that are provable from the
> given axioms.
>
> Let /s/ = any sentence
> Let /P/ - PROVABLE
>
> Let "This sentence is unprovable" be notionally equivalent to "This
> is a lie."
>
> Thus for any sentence /s/,
>
> 1) < /s/ > is in /P/ iff /s/ is provable.
>
> Since the set of axioms is computably generable;
>
> So is the set of proofs which use these axioms;
> So is the set of provable theorems and hence;
> So is /P/, the set of encodings of provable theorems.
>
> Since computable implies definable in adequate theories, /P/
> can be defined. /P/ is definable.
>
> Let /s/ be the sentence "This sentence is unprovable".
> By Tarski, /s/ exists since it is the solution of:
> 2) /s/ iff < /s/ > is not in /P/.
> Thus
> 3) /s/ iff < /s/ > is not in /P/ iff /s/ is not provable.
>
> Applying excluded middle, /s/ is either true or false.
>
> If /s/ is false, then by 3), /s/ is provable.
> That is impossible because provable sentences are true.
> Thus /s/ is true.
> Thus by 3), /s/ is not provable.
> Hence /s/ is true but unprovable.
>
> For Tarski's Lemma, see
> http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/god...#SelfReference
> Reference algorithm:
> http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/god...Incompleteness

<% brill'>

Now, that this is one poaster who cannot prove or disprove that that is a
lie, that tells me this is only provable if that is used.

--
You ain't Dutch if you've been conned.

Turicibacter Mesophilum Cavourensis
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-05-2005
Kutloze Scheefgepoepte, <kutloze@evil.****er.com>, the travel-stained,
sapless clack-dish, and usher and door attendant, peeped:

> "Sulfolobus Epamella Diarizonae"
>

<(E-Mail Removed)-encompassing-apprenticed-canker-blos
som.org>
> wrote in message
>

news:(E-Mail Removed)-fingered-self-seeded-mouse.c
om
>> Liam Slider, <(E-Mail Removed)>, the perspiring,
>> scoundrelly mare, and robber who preys on public roads, contrived:
>>
>>
>>> This is a lie.

>>
>> That lie is true.
>>
>> Proof. Given a computably generated set of axioms, let PROVABLE be
>> the set of numbers to encode sentences that are provable from the
>> given axioms.
>>
>> Let /s/ = any sentence
>> Let /P/ - PROVABLE
>>
>> Let "This sentence is unprovable" be notionally equivalent to "This
>> is a lie."
>>
>> Thus for any sentence /s/,
>>
>> 1) < /s/ > is in /P/ iff /s/ is provable.
>>
>> Since the set of axioms is computably generable;
>>
>> So is the set of proofs which use these axioms;
>> So is the set of provable theorems and hence;
>> So is /P/, the set of encodings of provable theorems.
>>
>> Since computable implies definable in adequate theories, /P/
>> can be defined. /P/ is definable.
>>
>> Let /s/ be the sentence "This sentence is unprovable".
>> By Tarski, /s/ exists since it is the solution of:
>> 2) /s/ iff < /s/ > is not in /P/.
>> Thus
>> 3) /s/ iff < /s/ > is not in /P/ iff /s/ is not
>> provable.
>>
>> Applying excluded middle, /s/ is either true or false.
>>
>> If /s/ is false, then by 3), /s/ is provable.
>> That is impossible because provable sentences are true.
>> Thus /s/ is true.
>> Thus by 3), /s/ is not provable.
>> Hence /s/ is true but unprovable.
>>
>> For Tarski's Lemma, see
>> http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/god...#SelfReference
>> Reference algorithm:
>> http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/god...Incompleteness

>
> <% brill'>
>
> Now, that this is one poaster who cannot prove or disprove that that
> is a lie, that tells me this is only provable if that is used.

This, that and the other don't give the retards as much trouble as these,
those and them. You watch, if the snail is drawn out of the safety of its
shell, which I doubt, it will shrivel up at the idea of "notionally
equivalent".

campilobacter
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-05-2005
Why is this idiot still on this ng.
"Sulfolobus Epamella Diarizonae"
<(E-Mail Removed)-encompassing-apprenticed-canker-blossom.org>
wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)-fingered-self-seeded-mouse.com...
> Liam Slider, <(E-Mail Removed)>, the perspiring, scoundrelly
> mare,
> and robber who preys on public roads, contrived:
>
>
>> This is a lie.

>
> That lie is true.
>
> Proof. Given a computably generated set of axioms, let PROVABLE be the set
> of numbers to encode sentences that are provable from the given axioms.
>
> Let /s/ = any sentence
> Let /P/ - PROVABLE
>
> Let "This sentence is unprovable" be notionally equivalent to "This is a
> lie."
>
> Thus for any sentence /s/,
>
> 1) < /s/ > is in /P/ iff /s/ is provable.
>
> Since the set of axioms is computably generable;
>
> So is the set of proofs which use these axioms;
> So is the set of provable theorems and hence;
> So is /P/, the set of encodings of provable theorems.
>
> Since computable implies definable in adequate theories, /P/
> can be defined. /P/ is definable.
>
> Let /s/ be the sentence "This sentence is unprovable".
> By Tarski, /s/ exists since it is the solution of:
> 2) /s/ iff < /s/ > is not in /P/.
> Thus
> 3) /s/ iff < /s/ > is not in /P/ iff /s/ is not provable.
>
> Applying excluded middle, /s/ is either true or false.
>
> If /s/ is false, then by 3), /s/ is provable.
> That is impossible because provable sentences are true.
> Thus /s/ is true.
> Thus by 3), /s/ is not provable.
> Hence /s/ is true but unprovable.
>
> For Tarski's Lemma, see
> http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/god...#SelfReference
> Reference algorithm:
> http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/god...Incompleteness
>

Daniel R
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-05-2005
"campilobacter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:1107645707.7302f0102489fbef034498fef4e7abd9@t eranews:

> Why is this idiot still on this ng.

Which group?

Posted to
24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.computer,alt.os.windows-

> "Sulfolobus Epamella Diarizonae"
> <(E-Mail Removed)-encompassing-apprentice
> d-canker-blossom.org> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)-fingered-self-s
> eeded-mouse.com...

Thauera Subcrinale
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-05-2005
campilobacter, <(E-Mail Removed)>, the transient, stone-deaf viper, and
tenant of manorial land who pays rent by having homosexual sex with the
landowner, grumbled:

> Why is this idiot still on this ng.

<aside>
Good question. Why is that idiot still on this ng?

kier
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-06-2005
campilobacter wrote:
> Why is this idiot still on this ng.

Well, you can always leave if you bother you.

Natronorubrum Largimobile Calliginosus Reverse Transcribing Virus
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-06-2005
7, <(E-Mail Removed)> , the excuse for a
second-rate, intolerant flap-dragon, and drinker of alcoholic beverages,
inveighed:

> You seem to be avoiding answering the original question.

What was the original question?

GreyCloud
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-06-2005
Sulfolobus Epamella Diarizonae wrote:
>
> Liam Slider, <(E-Mail Removed)>, the perspiring, scoundrelly mare,
> and robber who preys on public roads, contrived:
>
> > This is a lie.

>
> That lie is true.
>
> Proof. Given a computably generated set of axioms, let PROVABLE be the set
> of numbers to encode sentences that are provable from the given axioms.
>
> Let /s/ = any sentence
> Let /P/ - PROVABLE
>
> Let "This sentence is unprovable" be notionally equivalent to "This is a
> lie."
>
> Thus for any sentence /s/,
>
> 1) < /s/ > is in /P/ iff /s/ is provable.
>
> Since the set of axioms is computably generable;
>
> So is the set of proofs which use these axioms;
> So is the set of provable theorems and hence;
> So is /P/, the set of encodings of provable theorems.
>
> Since computable implies definable in adequate theories, /P/
> can be defined. /P/ is definable.
>
> Let /s/ be the sentence "This sentence is unprovable".
> By Tarski, /s/ exists since it is the solution of:
> 2) /s/ iff < /s/ > is not in /P/.
> Thus
> 3) /s/ iff < /s/ > is not in /P/ iff /s/ is not provable.
>
> Applying excluded middle, /s/ is either true or false.
>
> If /s/ is false, then by 3), /s/ is provable.
> That is impossible because provable sentences are true.
> Thus /s/ is true.
> Thus by 3), /s/ is not provable.
> Hence /s/ is true but unprovable.
>
> For Tarski's Lemma, see
> http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/god...#SelfReference
> Reference algorithm:
> http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/god...Incompleteness

Sounds like a load of DEC **** to me.
K-man... get a ****ing life.
What did you do to get canned by DEC??

**** the bosses secretary or something??

Big mistake.

--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.

Gloria Goitre
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-06-2005
"GreyCloud" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)

<HACK>

> Sounds like a load of DEC **** to me.
> K-man... get a ****ing life.

> What did you do to get canned by DEC??

WTF are you babbling on about, you spunkstain on a bedsheet?

> **** the bosses secretary or something??
>
> Big mistake.

When you know what you're banging on about, post back with full details.
Until then STFU.

--
Glorious Goitre