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

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Sulfolobus Epamella Diarizonae, Feb 5, 2005.

1. ### Sulfolobus Epamella DiarizonaeGuest

Liam Slider, <>, 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/godel/godel.html#SelfReference
Reference algorithm:
http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/godel/godel.html#FirstIncompleteness

Sulfolobus Epamella Diarizonae, Feb 5, 2005

2. ### Kutloze ScheefgepoepteGuest

"Sulfolobus Epamella Diarizonae"
<-encompassing-apprenticed-canker-blossom.org>
wrote in message
news:-fingered-self-seeded-mouse.com
> Liam Slider, <>, 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/godel/godel.html#SelfReference
> Reference algorithm:
> http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/godel/godel.html#FirstIncompleteness

<% 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.

Kutloze Scheefgepoepte, Feb 5, 2005

3. ### Turicibacter Mesophilum CavourensisGuest

Kutloze Scheefgepoepte, <>, the travel-stained,
sapless clack-dish, and usher and door attendant, peeped:

> "Sulfolobus Epamella Diarizonae"
>

<-encompassing-apprenticed-canker-blos
som.org>
> wrote in message
>

news:-fingered-self-seeded-mouse.c
om
>> Liam Slider, <>, 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/godel/godel.html#SelfReference
>> Reference algorithm:
>> http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/godel/godel.html#FirstIncompleteness

>
> <% 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".

Turicibacter Mesophilum Cavourensis, Feb 5, 2005
4. ### campilobacterGuest

Why is this idiot still on this ng.
"Sulfolobus Epamella Diarizonae"
<-encompassing-apprenticed-canker-blossom.org>
wrote in message
news:-fingered-self-seeded-mouse.com...
> Liam Slider, <>, 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/godel/godel.html#SelfReference
> Reference algorithm:
> http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/godel/godel.html#FirstIncompleteness
>

campilobacter, Feb 5, 2005
5. ### Daniel RGuest

"campilobacter" <> wrote in
news:1107645707.7302f0102489fbef034498fef4e7abd9@teranews:

> Why is this idiot still on this ng.

Which group?

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

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

Daniel R, Feb 5, 2005
6. ### Thauera SubcrinaleGuest

campilobacter, <>, 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?

Thauera Subcrinale, Feb 5, 2005
7. ### kierGuest

campilobacter wrote:
> Why is this idiot still on this ng.

Well, you can always leave if you bother you.

kier, Feb 6, 2005
8. ### Natronorubrum Largimobile Calliginosus Reverse TraGuest

7, <>, 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?

Natronorubrum Largimobile Calliginosus Reverse Tra, Feb 6, 2005
9. ### GreyCloudGuest

Sulfolobus Epamella Diarizonae wrote:
>
> Liam Slider, <>, 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/godel/godel.html#SelfReference
> Reference algorithm:
> http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/godel/godel.html#FirstIncompleteness

Sounds like a load of DEC shit to me.
K-man... get a fucking 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.

GreyCloud, Feb 6, 2005
10. ### Gloria GoitreGuest

"GreyCloud" <> wrote in message
news:

<HACK>

> Sounds like a load of DEC shit to me.
> K-man... get a fucking 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

Gloria Goitre, Feb 6, 2005
11. ### GreyCloudGuest

Gloria Goitre wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <> wrote in message
> news:
>
> <HACK>
>
> > Sounds like a load of DEC shit to me.
> > K-man... get a fucking 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.

I thought you plonked me and in your killfile... guess not
eh??

So what did DEC fire you over anyway??

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

GreyCloud, Feb 6, 2005
12. ### Gloria GoitreGuest

"GreyCloud" <> wrote in message
news:
> Gloria Goitre wrote:
>>
>> "GreyCloud" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>
>> <HACK>
>>
>>> Sounds like a load of DEC shit to me.
>>> K-man... get a fucking 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.

>
> I thought you plonked me and in your killfile... guess not
> eh??

You're quick, but I lied.

> So what did DEC fire you over anyway??

You tell me, in your own words now, if you can.

--
Glorious Goitre

Gloria Goitre, Feb 6, 2005
13. ### GreyCloudGuest

Gloria Goitre wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <> wrote in message
> news:
> > Gloria Goitre wrote:
> >>
> >> "GreyCloud" <> wrote in message
> >> news:
> >>
> >> <HACK>
> >>
> >>> Sounds like a load of DEC shit to me.
> >>> K-man... get a fucking 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.

> >
> > I thought you plonked me and in your killfile... guess not
> > eh??

>
> You're quick, but I lied.
>
> > So what did DEC fire you over anyway??

>
> You tell me, in your own words now, if you can.
>

Well, I certainly didn't fire you. So why not let it out.
Was it back when Compaq bought out DEC?

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

GreyCloud, Feb 7, 2005
14. ### Gloria GoitreGuest

"GreyCloud" <> wrote in message
news:
> Gloria Goitre wrote:
>>
>> "GreyCloud" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>> Gloria Goitre wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "GreyCloud" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:
>>>>
>>>> <HACK>
>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like a load of DEC shit to me.
>>>>> K-man... get a fucking 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.
>>>
>>> I thought you plonked me and in your killfile... guess not
>>> eh??

>>
>> You're quick, but I lied.
>>
>>> So what did DEC fire you over anyway??

>>
>> You tell me, in your own words now, if you can.
>>

>
> Well, I certainly didn't fire you. So why not let it out.
> Was it back when Compaq bought out DEC?

You see, you braindead ****, you can't even do that right, can you now, mmm.

You get given an opportunity to spill the beans about something you think is
noteworthy, and can do **** all but repeat your stupid self. Now, you've
either got something, or you haven't. Which is it, you mindless fuckin'
retard? PTFU or STFU.

--
Glorious Goitre

Gloria Goitre, Feb 7, 2005
15. ### Tikar the felcher-experimenterGuest

Gloria Goitre, <>, the scowling, oozy friar,
and garlicmonger, maundered:

> Yuoo see, yuoo breeendeed coont, yuoo cun't ifen du thet reeght, cun yuoo
> noo, mmm.
>
> Yuoo get geefen un ooppurtooneety tu speell zee beuns ebuoot sumetheeng
> yuoo theenk ees nutoourthy, und cun du ffoock ell boot repeet yuoor
> stoopeed selff. Noo, yuoo'fe-a ieezeer gut sumetheeng, oor yuoo hefen't.
> Vheech ees eet, yuoo meendless ffoockeen' reterd? PTFOo oor STFOo.

Yer wha?

Tikar the felcher-experimenter, Feb 7, 2005
16. ### Gloria GoitreGuest

"Tikar the felcher-experimenter"
<-frothy-milkman.net>
wrote in message
news:-sacked-tinselly-flunkey.org
> Gloria Goitre, <>, the scowling, oozy
> friar, and garlicmonger, maundered:
>
>
>> Yuoo see, yuoo breeendeed coont, yuoo cun't ifen du thet reeght, cun
>> yuoo noo, mmm.
>>
>> Yuoo get geefen un ooppurtooneety tu speell zee beuns ebuoot
>> sumetheeng yuoo theenk ees nutoourthy, und cun du ffoock ell boot
>> repeet yuoor stoopeed selff. Noo, yuoo'fe-a ieezeer gut sumetheeng,
>> oor yuoo hefen't. Vheech ees eet, yuoo meendless ffoockeen' reterd?
>> PTFOo oor STFOo.

>
> Yer wha?

YEAH!!!

--
Glorious Goitre

Gloria Goitre, Feb 7, 2005
17. ### Sogok the apprehensiveGuest

Gloria Goitre, <>, the frothy, ossiferous
fondler, and dish washer, plagued:

> "Tikar ze felcher-experimenter"
> <-frody-milkman.net>
> v-r-rote in message
> news:-sacked-tinselly-flunkey.org
>> Gloria Goitre, <>, the scowling, oozy
>> friar, and garlicmonger, maundered:
>>
>>
>>> Yuoo see, yuoo breeendeed coont, yuoo cun't ifen du thet reeght, cun
>>> yuoo noo, mmm.
>>>
>>> Yuoo get geefen un ooppurtooneety tu speell zee beuns ebuoot
>>> sumetheeng yuoo theenk ees nutoourthy, und cun du ffoock ell boot
>>> repeet yuoor stoopeed selff. Noo, yuoo'fe-a ieezeer gut sumetheeng,
>>> oor yuoo hefen't. Vheech ees eet, yuoo meendless ffoockeen' reterd?
>>> PTFOo oor STFOo.

>>
>> Yer wha?

>
> YEAH!!!

GayClod is a kraut. Try this on the ****:

> Vheder you r-r-realise it or not, you moudy no-nodingkt fucktard, I'm
> kallingkt you on your fanciful notion you hafe dat I'm zomeone oder
> dan vho I am.
>
> In all ze years I'fe been usingkt Usenet, you fucked up old kunt, vhat
> makes you dink you abofe all oders hafe found ze Holy Grail, eh?

Sogok the apprehensive, Feb 7, 2005
18. ### Kutloze ScheefgepoepteGuest

"Sogok the apprehensive"
<-sticky-frump.org> wrote in message
news:-minded-belabored-pubic-hair.org
> Gloria Goitre, <>, the frothy, ossiferous
> fondler, and dish washer, plagued:
>
>> "Tikar ze felcher-experimenter"
>> <-frody-milkman.net>
>> v-r-rote in message
>> news:-sacked-tinselly-flunkey.org
>>> Gloria Goitre, <>, the scowling, oozy
>>> friar, and garlicmonger, maundered:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yuoo see, yuoo breeendeed coont, yuoo cun't ifen du thet reeght,
>>>> cun yuoo noo, mmm.
>>>>
>>>> Yuoo get geefen un ooppurtooneety tu speell zee beuns ebuoot
>>>> sumetheeng yuoo theenk ees nutoourthy, und cun du ffoock ell boot
>>>> repeet yuoor stoopeed selff. Noo, yuoo'fe-a ieezeer gut sumetheeng,
>>>> oor yuoo hefen't. Vheech ees eet, yuoo meendless ffoockeen' reterd?
>>>> PTFOo oor STFOo.
>>>
>>> Yer wha?

>>
>> YEAH!!!

>
> GayClod is a kraut. Try this on the ****:
>
>> Vheder you r-r-realise it or not, you moudy no-nodingkt fucktard, I'm
>> kallingkt you on your fanciful notion you hafe dat I'm zomeone oder
>> dan vho I am.
>>
>> In all ze years I'fe been usingkt Usenet, you fucked up old kunt,
>> vhat makes you dink you abofe all oders hafe found ze Holy Grail, eh?

LOL

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

Kutloze Scheefgepoepte, Feb 7, 2005