Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newscene!novia!novia!sequencer.newscene.com!not-for-mail
From: "Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapt...@partpostmark.net>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Goedel - interesting problem?
Date: 12 Jun 2004 14:37:12 -0500
Organization: Canine Attack Unit 9, Cherry Point, NC
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <40cb5ad9$0$88486$45beb828@newscene.com>
References: <slrncckgdb.ea.cmenzel@philebus.tamu.edu>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-Complaints-To: yelpdesk@ruff.com


Chris Menzel <cmen...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
>On 11 Jun 2004 07:17:08 -0500, Acme Diagnostics
><LFinezapt...@partpostmark.net> said:

>>  "...any set of axioms at least as rich as the axioms of arithmetic has
>>  statements which are true in that set of axioms, but cannot be proved
>>  by using that set of axioms."
>
You suggest to snip "in that set of axioms" leaving:
>  Any set of axioms at least as rich as the axioms of arithmetic has
>  statements which are true, but cannot be proved by using that set of
>  axioms.
>
<snip>
>Moreover, given that the edited version AT THE LEAST does not harm the
>content (indeed, as noted, it improves it considerably, but I don't even
>need that premise), it follows that the edited version is superior for
>the intended readership, as it conveys at least the same content, but in
>simpler, more understandable terms.

Chris, I'm sorry now that I chopped up the above argument and
responded piecemeal. Today I see it as remarkable in two respects:
It is finally responsive to use of the article and editing criteria,
even using those criteria to make part of the argument. It is IMO the
strongest criticism I've received by far. Also an admirable piece of
argument, IMO. I especially like "but I don't even need that premise."
I would add "shorter" to the end.
Thanks.

I still have at least three arguments for "in that set of axioms," but
the second now seems mostly redundant. I have to weigh those against
"simpler, more understandable, and shorter." I don't believe I've won
that argument with a copy-editor very often! The roles are reversed
because my arguments have to do with accuracy (here at our 50X focus)
not editing. Clever.

Larry