Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vm9e9f$r2f$1@rasp.pasdenom.info> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4e17:0:b0:3a6:a5c3:fd3c with SMTP id c23-20020ac84e17000000b003a6a5c3fd3cmr19073950qtw.36.1671469130303; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 08:58:50 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a25:b90:0:b0:6f9:a73b:5398 with SMTP id 138-20020a250b90000000b006f9a73b5398mr41160057ybl.29.1671469130104; Mon, 19 Dec 2022 08:58:50 -0800 (PST) Path: ...!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: sci.logic Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 08:58:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <b046d8bc-2088-4ee6-b17d-afb255751de7n@googlegroups.com> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=68.145.71.132; posting-account=hsXSVgoAAAAitoRfE-spc_8dYrrq_Iht NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.145.71.132 References: <41674b26-6fff-4860-a8b8-c791dc5fbf10n@googlegroups.com> <49d04319-a277-4e38-841c-827f17a82df2n@googlegroups.com> <0cdacff9-1bbf-480f-8f47-8f501b495a75n@googlegroups.com> <b046d8bc-2088-4ee6-b17d-afb255751de7n@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <0a691887-093d-42de-b89f-a98d81f7ad12n@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: "Can you identify at least two or three fatal flaws, not rescuable, in Shoenfield's alleged "proof" of his Completeness Theorem, Second Form (pg. 43, https://www2.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~krajicek/shoenfield.pdf)?" From: Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 16:58:50 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Bytes: 2178 Lines: 11 On Monday, 19 December 2022 at 09:54:25 UTC-7, Khong Dong wrote: > On Friday, 9 December 2022 at 20:02:08 UTC-7, Khong Dong wrote: > > On Friday, 9 December 2022 at 11:09:41 UTC-7, Fritz Feldhase wrote: > > > On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 9:13:06 AM UTC+1, khongdo...@gmail.com wrote [nothing] > > > > > > I don't think that "we" can. Can you? > > > I've answered the question (via Meta Mathematics Space). So yes, one _can_ identify at least a couple of fatal flaws. > So, would you (FF) agree, acknowledge Shoenfield's "proof" is invalid? If not, please technically articulate. Thank you. [Added the question mark "?" to the above.]