I'm not clear on the semantic value of this paragraph. Lest you might take it that I thereby blame you for my deficiency in twisting my mind around this paragraph's line of thought I'll declare myself non-plussed. There is no such beast as reliable software. The Geek comment is that by the time the bugs are removed a new version shows up. Software is rated for periods of duration between crashes. A copula being a liaison or association I suspect Gauss produced a way to produce a single instance. Wikipedia is rather obtuse on it. If so then it's precisely your idiots who latch onto a single instance or occasion and insist it's THE one and only truth around? Moreover it is because even logicians seldom know the limits and faults of their craft that inanities arise. So unwrapping your verbosity into the plainest of statements are you saying that people can write nonsense? A simple yes or no would do.
"Archytas of Tarentum was a Greek mathematician, political leader and philosopher, active in the first half of the fourth century BC (i.e., during Plato's lifetime)." Are you really that old? It reminds me of Anthony calling Brutus "an honorable man". Georges seems to suffer from a rather quaint form of autism. I wonder does he take his medication regularly? adrian archytas wrote: > We might say "logic smodgik" in respect of a lot of academic work. In > social science Godel was hailed as somehow allowing intution at the > expense of hard work - strangely lots of brain dumps of twaddle > lacking intuition followed. I quite like the idea of reliable > software doing work that would otherwise consume lifetimes, much as I > welcome technology in farming to save broken backs - yet there is a > price to pay if this is just to doom us to fat idleness and idle > criminality or the inanities of single Gaussian copula based super- > computing to keep an idle rich or consume us in Dr. Strangelove's > Game. We do not pay enough attention to what logic becomes once it is > playing a part in practical matters, and when idiots render it > unquestionable. > > On 26 Aug, 09:17, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> --- On Tue, 8/26/08, archytas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I'd take a different tack on Godel. ... >> =============== >> Before taking it have a look at >> " LIAR'S PARADOX" >> inhttp://findgeorges.com/ROOT/RELATIVISTIC_DIALECTIC/C_MODELING_AND_LOG... >> which clearly shows that of all cortege following >> Russell's fatuous "logic" Goedel was the most asinine, >> not worth while losing a minute to tackle with. >> Georges. >> >> =================== > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
