Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion If ZFC is a FORMAL THEORY ... then what is THEOREM 1 ?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
George Greene  
View profile  
 More options Oct 11 2012, 11:55 pm
Newsgroups: sci.logic
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.

> and you STILL GET THE PARADOX:

NO, DUMBASS, you get the paradox WITHOUT DEFINING ANY meaning for e.
ErAx[xRr <--> ~xrx]
is contradictory FOR ALL binary relations r, REGARDLESS of whether R
is
a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, u, v, w, or shaves, or contains, or
wanks.

 
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.