Received: by 10.224.31.20 with SMTP id w20mr2031720qac.2.1350014099983;
        Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.201.134 with SMTP id b6mr493404yho.15.1350014099958; Thu,
 11 Oct 2012 20:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
Path: r17ni19491880qap.0!nntp.google.com!l8no45829267qao.0!postnews.google.com!m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=99.12.164.30; posting-account=S6jUlgkAAAAS0KYO9CfNqTx523v1YxGt
NNTP-Posting-Host: 99.12.164.30
References: <f76717da-e106-4b58-829b-b8531bff5faa@q9g2000pbo.googlegroups.com>
 <5dd10c67-ea7e-4011-bf90-1e2b70e74aee@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
 <4b8e81fd-7ef2-400c-888b-f87a83ecc2c8@m5g2000pbv.googlegroups.com>
 <506F65FD.EC1AC49E@btinternet.com> <f33daf55-3005-4ed0-a20f-bebb6a902d02@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com>
 <3d532c39-f978-4340-9590-ae091174a4a7@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <6826b7f4-48cd-4245-ba3d-35ccbbbb76cf@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
 <f951d341-9126-4763-8cdb-8c504c094058@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <8fcdb2cd-1834-42b4-9fcb-b14ced178202@rj6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
 <dc81d599-ad41-4f02-b9e8-d3ce3930d5ee@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <052deae1-ee2d-40c0-b1cd-e709fb5e46f1@q9g2000pbo.googlegroups.com>
 <70b25834-5e73-485e-bf23-f5b2ba88c5bb@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <a7f5ba12-2f64-4a44-9d42-7a80135e3cc8@p5g2000pbs.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/15.0.1,gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <0c89ede8-9e0e-45bb-acff-38ecad3f5856@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: If ZFC is a FORMAL THEORY ... then what is THEOREM 1 ?
From: George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu>
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 03:54:59 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Oct 11, 4:03=A0pm, 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.