Math Forum / Mathematics / Mathematical Logic / December 2007

You can ban people from using google forums. Pjmutn... the religious
spammer has banned "John Jones" who was attempting to stop his
spamming.
HERE'S WHAT TO DO:

Last message from John Jones account, which was banned:
a03b96c1-2b5a-4c9c-868b-9d2268f2dde5@j64g2000hsj.googlegroups.com
First message from new account of John Jones:  userjn...@aol.com
7d772c93-6962-4cc9-b878-5c389732ac74@f52g2000hsa.googlegroups.com

The logical magician (logician, for short) is fond of surprising
unsuspecting friends with sentences such as, "I am lying". A friend is
likely to reply, "And what are you lying about this time?"
The logician will persist with something like, "No, I am lying right

The results of Godel (1931, proof based on soundness), Rosser (1936)
and Turing (1937) boil down to the following 3 theorems:
1. If "x proves y" is expressible, then provability does not coincide
with truth.

I don't claim to know all the problems associated with the formulation
of functions and variables, but here are two problems that I think
have not been explored, for which I offer a solution, which in turn
gives us the wherewithall to resolve paradoxes of the Russell type:

WHY עשוהי, I.E. JESUS, IS NOT THE JEWISH MESSIAH IF הוהי is the LORD
Many Christians claim that הוהי is the LORD and Elohim, while his son
עשוהי is the Messiah.
All Jews reject this and rightfully so.  If it were true, don't you

The system RCA0 is central to "Reverse Mathematics". It can be proven
consistent in first order Peano arithmetic PA. But what happens if we
add the PA induction schema to RCA0? I was wondering what you would
get.

I have just completed a first draft of an expository paper on forcing.
 http://alum.mit.edu/www/tchow/forcing.pdf
This paper grew out of a sci.math.research article that I posted back
in 2001 entitled "Forcing for dummies":

WHY עשוהי, I.E. JESUS, IS NOT THE JEWISH MESSIAH IF הוהי is the LORD
Many Christians claim that הוהי is the LORD and Elohim, while his son
עשוהי is the Messiah.
All Jews reject this and rightfully so.  If it were true, don't you

Is there any sentence undeciable in ZFC, such that it is proved that
this sentence is not equivalent  to con(ZFC), con(conZFC).... etc and
it doens`t imply ~con(ZFC), or ~con(con(ZFC) etc. Is however certain
that this kind of sentences does exist?

Let`s suppose a non-recursive extension of the Robinson arithmetic
"proves" every true arithmetical statement. Is this theory necessarily
complete?

Old Greek inference is difficult as a method.  It requires a slow
deliberate attack of the subject.  Not a speed denial of real
inference as with common English predicate.
Why is it difficult? You might ask.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUb8ySdERKs
DEUTSCH
Music: Franz Xaver Gruber, 1818
Words: Joseph Mohr, 1816/1818

I made a script that creates points (actually planets) on a 3D space,
the problem is how to find to closest point to a given one?
One way is to see if there's a point at each closest coordinate, (x
+1,y,Z) then (x,y+1,z) and so on, the problem is that if the given

WHY יהושע, I.E. JESUS, IS NOT THE JEWISH MESSIAH IF יהוה is the LORD
Many Christians claim that יהוה is the LORD and Elohim, while his son
יהושע is the Messiah.
All Jews reject this and rightfully so.  If it were true, don't you