Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!gargoyle!stuart From: stuart@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Stuart Kurtz) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Re: Rich Rosen & Logic. Message-ID: <177@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Mon, 6-Aug-84 12:17:18 EDT Article-I.D.: gargoyle.177 Posted: Mon Aug 6 12:17:18 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Aug-84 08:06:01 EDT References: <662@teltone.UUCP> <1700034@iuvax.UUCP> Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science Lines: 32 Readers of net.religon ... I apologize for that flaw in my personality that requires me to publically respond to public attacks. > From: dsaker@iuvax.UUCP > ... > > [] > The way Godel's Incompleteness Theorems are tossed around makes me sick. > These are technical results; they can't be thrown into the realm of > ordinary philosophical deliberations off-handedly. > Before anyone out there throws them in again, please, PLEASE, GO & READ > A PRECISE STATEMENT OF THEM. > > Daryel Akerlind "Your ignorance makes me > ...ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsaker ill and angry ..." First, I am quite well acquainted with the precise, formal versions of Godel's theorems. My credentials include a PhD in mathematical logic. It is important to remember that mathematical logic is first and foremost a mathematical analysis of reasoning. Therefore, attempts to transfer technical theorems of mathematical logic to informal arguments are not *necessarily* flawed a priori. My use of the incompleteness theorem was to point out a specific technical flaw in Rich Rosen's reasoning. I challenge Mr Akerling *personally*, to point out why my original application of the 2nd incompleteness theorem was incorrect. (I did implicitly assume that RR accepts the rules of arithmetic.) ---------------------------------------- "Some of us sheep are sheep, and some of us are wolves." Stuart Kurtz : Department of Computer Science ihnp4!gargoyle!stuart : The University of Chicago