.ll 72
.fo off
.co on
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
.ce ADR - 394
.ce
.ce Copyright (C) Homer Wilson Smith
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
======================================================================== 67
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 89 13:17:21 EDT
From: Homer
Subject: Re: double think
To: Adore-l list
In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 17 Jul 89 14:39:52 EDT from
>
>I am fully versed in the first and second order predicate and
>propositional logics.
I should have known. Now I am in deeeeeep trouble.
I should point out that I am NOT well versed in second order
predicate and propositional logics, in fact I can hardly pronounce
the words.
>
>Your premise is ~p [nothing can be proven]
>
>Given: ~p
> ~p -> p
> p
Let p mean 'Something can be proven.'
Let not-p mean 'Nothing can be proven.' (its not true something can...)
Let r mean 'not-p is proven'.
Norman claims my arguement states that not-p implies p.
In English that reads,
If 'nothing can be proven' then 'something can be proven'.
Clearly this is neither a tautology nor is it obviously true.
And I never made the statement and I never used it in any proof
on this subject.
The state I made was
If not-p is PROVEN then p. (If r then p.)
This is very different from
If not-p is TRUE then p.
not-p might very well be true, this does not give rise
to a contradiction in itself.
All I have said is that
If not-p is true then not-p can not be PROVEN.
and
If not-p is proven, then p.
And THAT CAN be proven.
Thus not-p is false. (Because of the one counter example.)
For sure.
I await Norman's rapier analysis, except he is sulking licking
his wounds off the list.
My condolences.
Homer Adore-l list 7/20/89*double think