Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 2:55 pm
Axiom(x) → ~Provable(x) It like saying I have a cup of waterthereforemy cup is empty.
Even God can't help this level of idiocy.
If "I have a cup of water" is an axiom it follows that "I have a cup of water" is not provable.
It's called non-provable because it doesn't appears on the right-hand side of the therefore.
??? thereforeI have a cup of water.
Making sure to ignore what I say is not an actual rebuttal
Semantic Necessity operator: ⊨□
"I have a cup of water" ⊨□ "I have a cup of water" // thus provable
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 2:55 pm
Axiom(x) → ~Provable(x) It like saying I have a cup of waterthereforemy cup is empty.
Even God can't help this level of idiocy.
If "I have a cup of water" is an axiom it follows that "I have a cup of water" is not provable.
It's called non-provable because it doesn't appears on the right-hand side of the therefore.
??? thereforeI have a cup of water.
Making sure to ignore what I say is not an actual rebuttal
Semantic Necessity operator: ⊨□
"I have a cup of water" ⊨□ "I have a cup of water" // thus provable
Yeah. Genius!
∀x x ⊨ x
That's equivalent to the principle of exlosion. Everything is entailed!
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 3:01 pm
Even God can't help this level of idiocy.
If "I have a cup of water" is an axiom it follows that "I have a cup of water" is not provable.
It's called non-provable because it doesn't appears on the right-hand side of the therefore.
??? thereforeI have a cup of water.
Making sure to ignore what I say is not an actual rebuttal
Semantic Necessity operator: ⊨□
"I have a cup of water" ⊨□ "I have a cup of water" // thus provable
Yeah. Genius!
∀x x ⊨ x
That's equivalent to the principle of exlosion. Everything is entailed!
That every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion.
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 6:21 pm
That every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion.
Of course it is. Everything entails itself, therefore everything is provable.
Axiomatically: God exists ⊨□ God exists.
Axiomatically: God doesn't exist ⊨□ God doesn't exist
Axiomatically: 1+1=5 ⊨□ 1+1=5
Axiomatically: This sentence is a lie ⊨□ This sentence is a lie
Every one of the above is proven, therefore it's true.
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 6:21 pm
That every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion.
Of course it is. Everything entails itself, therefore everything is provable.
Axiomatically: God exists ⊨□ God exists.
Axiomatically: God doesn't exist ⊨□ God doesn't exist
Axiomatically: 1+1=5 ⊨□ 1+1=5
Axiomatically: This sentence is a lie ⊨□ This sentence is a lie
Every one of the above is proven, therefore it's true.
Did you notice that 1+1=5 is not an axiom? Every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion. Every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion. Every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion.
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 6:35 pm
Did you notice that 1+1=5 is not an axiom?
Says who? Do you have a decision procedure for Axiom(x) or ~Axiom(x) ?
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 6:35 pmEvery axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion. Every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion. Every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion.
It is. Everything sentence proves itself true therefore any sentence is true.
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 6:35 pm
Did you notice that 1+1=5 is not an axiom?
Says who? Do you have a decision procedure for Axiom(x) or ~Axiom(x) ?
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 6:35 pmEvery axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion. Every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion. Every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion.
It is. Everything sentence proves itself true therefore any sentence is true.
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 6:51 pm
Not every sentence is an axiom
So, is the sentence "Not every sentence is an axiom" an axiom or a non-axiom?
Let me know when you want to quit playing head games until then I quit. You must prove that you want an honest dialogue until then I will quit talking to you
Last edited by PeteOlcott on Mon Apr 03, 2023 7:39 pm, edited 4 times in total.
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 6:21 pm
OK, now prove that by changing your demeanor and making comments and questions that pertain to an honest dialogue.
I've literally shown you your own error. And I've wasted my time doing it in exchange for no reward whatsoever.
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 6:21 pm
OK, now prove that by changing your demeanor and making comments and questions that pertain to an honest dialogue.
I've literally shown you your own error. And I've wasted my time doing it in exchange for no reward whatsoever.
You don't think that's honest?
Since there cannot possibly be any error (with the way that analytical truth really works) you have at best shown your lack of comprehension and at worst lied your ass off to play a mere trollish head game.
The choice of your username seems to indicate the latter.
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 6:42 pm
Since there cannot possibly be any error (with the way that analytical truth really works) you have at best shown your lack of comprehension and at worst lied your ass off to play a mere trollish head game.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 11:05 pm
Does there ever come a point in your reasoning where you go "Oh, fuck! Yeah. I am an idiot!"?
It's really f****** tiresome having to interact with an egomaniac who thinks his intellectual "prowess" and pure, error-free reason is God's gift to humanity.
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 6:42 pmThe choice of your username seems to indicate the latter.
My conduct has nothing to do with the fact that you are wrong, but it sure gives you a convenient excuse to change the subject without acknowledging your error.