|
|
george says...
>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 would have been an inappropriate response, also.
>That is NOT the point. The point IS that HE was using variables
>while insisting that he wasn't.
He didn't mean that *he* wasn't using variables. He
meant that there is an axiomatization of PRA in which
none of the axioms have variables.
If you want to say that Peter made a mistake by
not *literally* saying what he meant; well, sometimes
you assume that your listener can fill in details
for themselves, or ask followup questions if they
can't.
>I AM NOT the one who made the relevant mistake here.
Yes, you certainly are. It was a mistake for you not
to 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".
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
|
|