Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
From: George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, Oct 11 2012 11:54 pm
Subject: Re: If ZFC is a FORMAL THEORY ... then what is THEOREM 1 ?
On Oct 11, 4:03 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK so you DEFINE THE MEANING OF 'e' purely for use at the AXIOM LEVEL.NO, DUMBASS, you get the paradox WITHOUT DEFINING ANY meaning for e.
> and you STILL GET THE PARADOX:
ErAx[xRr <--> ~xrx]
is contradictory FOR ALL binary relations r, REGARDLESS of whether R
a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, u, v, w, or shaves, or contains, or
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.