does colin leslie dean have msn?
wat?
ramsey is a mathematician and he says AR is not valid
from Godels collected works-he is a mathematician
So you’re appealing to someone else’s authority without even giving a reasonable summary of thier position? Now that doesn’t seem philosophically valid. Maybe you could explain just how Godel’s work is flawed by first telling is what it’s supposed to mean. Then maybe you can explain how it’s wrong by showing us what Ramsey says about how this axiom works in Godel’s system and then explaining to us how there’s an inconsistency, and what exactly it is. I really just want to learn here, honest…
just as you take scientists and mathematicians word for things without you being able to explain just how what they say works or supposed mean or why theories are flawed ie string theory black hole physics-oh i dont say you know all these because they are just metaphor examples for the things you dont know but just take an authority for it
just as you appeal to someone else’s authority without being able give a reasonable summary-your accountants doctor etc
all i need to know is that ramsay -and others have said AR is invalid
the beauty of deans work is he throws your authorities down your throat
you want to disprove dean then disprove your own authorities
deans position is clear
all human thinking ends in meaninglessness -yours ramseys godels einstiens and HIS
you want to disprove deans claims that godel is invalid-then dont attack him you attack your experts he uses to prove his point- they are your experts not his
colin leslie dean is a moron.
I’ve decided to no longer capitalize his name because it doesn’t deserve the dignity of being written properly like anyone else’s.
Not that he would notice, anyway, for as much as he knows about grammar.
well he proved godel invalid-with YOUR VERY OWN EXPERTS
so your experts must be moron to -dean would love that i think
hahaha
You do realize that no one’s buying that you aren’t colin?
Also, you do realize that your theory is incompatible with proofs? You can’t use ‘our experts’ against us if they’re meaningless.
This does not mean I think you’re right. Quite the opposite.
I haven’t appealed to any of those things. I’m asking you simply to illustrate Godel’s premises and conclusion, and then to show me how Dean shows them to be invalid, and then to explain to me what that means philosophically. Who said I believe in black holes? You really can’t prove anything can you? I’m the last one here who sees you as anything but a troll, so before you lose whatever credibility that you may have left, just give a proper response to my reasonable requests and maybe I’ll just take your side.
he uses your own experts who you think are meaningful to show that they all end in meaninglessness
it is your experts he uses to show that your experts end in meaninglessness
you see he puts you in a beautiful dillemma
dean says useing your experts that your views end in meaninglessness
but to prove that wrong you have to show your experts are wrong ie are meaninglessness
thus either way you end in meaninglessness
by accepting dean based on your experts
or by proving your experts wrong
hahaha
happy spin out
You think you’re clever, but you’re not.
You think that one expert being wrong nullifies the whole of whatever field they’re in. This is not the case.
Meaning is subjective. The question of whether objective meaning exists or not cannot be answered. At least not by you; you’re far too stupid.
one of his premises was AR it is invalid
all any one has to know
if Einstein proved e-mc2 based on the premise 1+1=7 being valid then his proof is invalid
if i am your accountant and i prove all your money is mine based on an invalid axiom are you going to accept my proof and let me have your money
ramsey says AR is invalid
and
you work it out
your own experts say AR it is invalid
if you make a proof with an invalid axiom then the proof is invalid
godel based his proof on AR being valid it is not so his proof is invalid
his theorem is invalid- irrespective of what other have done since
what godel did is invalid as he used invalid axioms
Ladyjane these are not my experts. I’ve never heard of Ramsey. Don’t you get it? You’re just dropping names, and claiming that Godel was some fool, and you’re not supporting those claims at all. If you just don’t know how to articulate what you understand, then maybe you should work on it and come back when you can explain your view.
It’s very strange that you choose Godel to attack. It’s not as if there was some great community of Godel fans here who were just dying to defend him.
Please and without and sort of nonsense, describe your understanding of Godel’s work, then explain how Dean’s work has some bearing on it, then give us a philosophical explanation of what it all means. If you can’t do that then you’re just a bag of hot air. You have proven nothing. How can you prove something without illustrating it in any way?
Just an explanation of Godel, then one of how Dean’s work effects his, then a bit on what that means to us all philosophically. Do me that favor if you can. If you can’t then you have no credibility.
Here’s a secret: everyone makes mistakes, even experts.
So what if someone made a mistake? I don’t know if Goedel was wrong, and I don’t care. It doesn’t detract any meaning from mathematics.
Smears is right; most people don’t even know who Goedel is. Way to ‘prove’ something about a huge math fraud when most people aren’t affected by his work.
You’re an idiot and I’m going to bed.
hey
your account uses an axiom every one says is invalid to prove your money is his
i dont think you would be to interested in him philosophicaly explaining his proof to you or describing his understanding of accountantcy theory
all you need to know is the axiom he used to prove your money is his is invalid
I need to know the context for which the axiom was deemed to be invalid and if Godel used that axiom in such a context. Why don’t you explain it to me. Your metaphor about an accountant screwing me over meaning that Godel is screwing me over is pretty weak. Don’t be so lazy this time and give me something substantive or admit your incompetence.
And why do you think I’m not interested in a philosophical explanation of the implications of all this? I’ve only asked you for it about 5 times. I think you’re just not informed enough about what you’re trying to sell to properly sell it.
all you need to know about your accountants axiom is it is invalid according to your experts-you are not interested in any thing else and if you where then you would go ask your experts just why it is invalid
you take that up with your experts
ramsay is clear
the others are clear
i dont thinks so
you would not accept your money being your accountants based on an invalid axiom
you want something substantive go ask your experts -its their incompetence you are really interested in
dean is just basing his claims on their competence
as i said you want to disprove dean then you disprove your experts
I can’t remember where I said it, but it went something like this:
So why do you so passionatley advocate an idea that you don’t even really understand?
I advocate no idea as all ideas end in meaninglessness
All i am doing is throwing your experts down your throat -it is they who passionatley advocate an idea
dont forget deans works is a case study in meaninglessness -Godel just happens to be that case study