|
|
Daryl McCullough wrote:
> george says...
>
> >If Peter had just said, "Well, I don't need any variables
> >in the object-language, but you will need them in the
> >meta-language", then we MIGHT've clarified this
> >a little sooner.
>
> Alternatively, after reading Peter's post, *you* could
> have said "Okay, I agree that you don't need variables
> in the object language, but you certainly need something
> equivalent to variables in the metalanguage" instead of
> shouting profanities.
I could also have leaped off the empire state building.
That is NOT the point. The point IS that HE was using variables
while insisting that he wasn't. I AM NOT the one who made the
relevant mistake here.
> >But that ultimately would NOT have helped because I would
> >NOT have conceded that his alleged meta-language EVEN WAS "meta".
>
> It certainly was.
It is UP TO ME what I will concede or not.
Just because you have met the usual criterion for making
something a meta-language does NOT mean there is NOTHING
objectionable about your having done so. You actually reply here
as though I had FAILED TO UNDERSTAND that the usual crtieria
had been met. That fundamentally unfits you to talk to me.
|
|