XPost: sci.logic

On 7/7/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

Is "Not-a-logic-sentence" a truth value that True, of ~false can
return or not?

*I will try to be perfectly clear*
Not-a-logic-sentence(L,x) ≡ (~True(L,x) ∧ ~True(L,~x))

In other words, you have no idea of how to express you concept in the
terms of how a logic would be built with it, as you just don't
undertand how logic works.

That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using language}
is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
using formal language and formalized natural language.

Word salad.

No such model exists, so you are basing your system on faery dust.

You just don't understand what you are talking about, and think Formal
Logic is just like the abstract philosophy you seemed to have studied a
bit of.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 7/7/24 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

Is "Not-a-logic-sentence" a truth value that True, of ~false can
return or not?

*I will try to be perfectly clear*
Not-a-logic-sentence(L,x) ≡ (~True(L,x) ∧ ~True(L,~x))

In other words, you have no idea of how to express you concept in the
terms of how a logic would be built with it, as you just don't undertand
how logic works.

That isn't a problem unless you want to actually try to define a logic
system, which it seems you are trying to do, in which case it is a BIG
problem.

Note, one basic feature of logic, is someone using it doesn't need to
look at terms they are not interested in and not using,

Thus, when I define that x is defined as ~True(L, x) and asking what
value True(L, x) is, and why, since you say it is false, that we can't
say that since x is defined as ~True(L, x) and thus would be evaluated
to be ~false, which is true, and thus you are saying that True(L, true)
is false which is a contradiction to its defintion.

YOu can't say but over here ,,, as that doesn't matter.

Something is wrong with your definition of True(L, x) or you system just
can't handle statements with references like that, or it just doesn't work.

If you can't handle that sort of reference, then you can't handle
mathematics, as Godel showed we can make such references with mathematics.

IF you can't even DEFINE how your system works, how do you expect to
build anything with it?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 7/7/24 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

Is "Not-a-logic-sentence" a truth value that True, of ~false can >>>>>>> return or not?

*I will try to be perfectly clear*
Not-a-logic-sentence(L,x) ≡ (~True(L,x) ∧ ~True(L,~x))

In other words, you have no idea of how to express you concept in
the terms of how a logic would be built with it, as you just don't
undertand how logic works.

That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using language}
is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
using formal language and formalized natural language.

Word salad.

No such model exists, so you are basing your system on faery dust.

You just don't understand what you are talking about, and think
Formal Logic is just like the abstract philosophy you seemed to have
studied a bit of.

Formal logic is a subset of this.

Nope. Uses different (and stricter) rules.

That you don't understand this just shows your ignorance, and is why you
can't actually PROVE anything because the standard of proof is one of
the big differences.

Not-a-logic-sentence(PA,g) ≡ (~True(PA,g) ∧ ~True(PA,~g))
There are no truth preserving operations in PA to g or to ~g

https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

Within my analytical framework this Tarski sentence is merely self-contradictory

(3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True. // (1) and (2) combined

In other words, you don't understand his PROOF, Note (1) and (2) are NOT "assumptions" but statements of facts from ealier in the work.

If you can't find the erroneous step to get them, you have no counter to
his statement.

There are no truth preserving operations in Tarski's
theory to x if and only if There are truth preserving
operations in Tarski's theory to x

Nope, there is no FINITE sequence of truth preserving operations (a
proof) to x if and only if there are a (possibly infinite) sequence of
truth perserving operations to x (meaning it is a true statement).

This is possible if the only sequences of truth preserving operations to
x are infinite in length.

You are just demonstrating your ignorance of what you talk about.

Because you don't understand the difference between a true statement and
a proven statement aka a known statement, you don't understand what he
is talking about and thus just continue to LIE.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 7/7/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 10:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

Is "Not-a-logic-sentence" a truth value that True, of ~false >>>>>>>>> can return or not?

*I will try to be perfectly clear*
Not-a-logic-sentence(L,x) ≡ (~True(L,x) ∧ ~True(L,~x))

In other words, you have no idea of how to express you concept in >>>>>>> the terms of how a logic would be built with it, as you just
don't undertand how logic works.

That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using language} >>>>>> is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed >>>>>> using formal language and formalized natural language.

Word salad.

No such model exists, so you are basing your system on faery dust.

You just don't understand what you are talking about, and think
Formal Logic is just like the abstract philosophy you seemed to
have studied a bit of.

Formal logic is a subset of this.

Nope. Uses different (and stricter) rules.

That you don't understand this just shows your ignorance, and is why
you can't actually PROVE anything because the standard of proof is one
of the big differences.

Not-a-logic-sentence(PA,g) ≡ (~True(PA,g) ∧ ~True(PA,~g))
There are no truth preserving operations in PA to g or to ~g

https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

Within my analytical framework this Tarski sentence is merely
self-contradictory

(3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True. // (1) and (2) combined

In other words, you don't understand his PROOF, Note (1) and (2) are
NOT "assumptions" but statements of facts from ealier in the work.

It does not matter how Tarski derived the self-contradictory
expression it only matters that all such expressions cannot
possibly be propositions.

Yes, it does.

First, it is NOT "self-contradictory", that is just your lie based on
WROMG definitions, that by repeating it, you just prove yourself to be
an ignorant pathological liar.

Second, If the statement has been PROVEN from "true" statements, then if
it actually being contradictory says that something actually assumed in
the proof is incorrect.

Fortunately, the statement isn't contradictory.

When a proof is done correctly it must be a sequence of truth
preserving operations or it it wrong.

Right, and to show it is wrong you need to point out the step that is incorrect, not just that you don't like the answer.

If you can't find the erroneous step to get them, you have no counter
to his statement.

*self-contradictory expressions must be rejected*

But it isn't self-contradictory, except when you apply your incorrect definitions. That shows YOUR definitions are wrong and must be rejected.

There are no truth preserving operations in Tarski's
theory to x if and only if There are truth preserving
operations in Tarski's theory to x

Nope, there is no FINITE sequence of truth preserving operations (a
proof) to x if and only if there are a (possibly infinite) sequence of
truth perserving operations to x (meaning it is a true statement).

This is possible if the only sequences of truth preserving operations
to x are infinite in length.

There cannot be any infinite sequence of truth preserving operations affirming operations that no finite sequence of truth preserving
operations exists in this case.

Wrong. And

When there is a cycle in the directed graph of an evaluation sequence
of an expression (unlike the proving the Goldbach conjecture) there
is zero progress toward the goal.

But who says there is such a cycle?

You are just showing your stupidity.

?- LP = not(true_(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.

That Prolog can't handle it does not mean it isn't true.

You have been told that many times in the past, and you continued
falling back to such statements just shows how stupid you are, and that
you are nothing but an ignorant pathological lying idiot.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 7/8/24 9:13 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/8/2024 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 10:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

Is "Not-a-logic-sentence" a truth value that True, of ~false >>>>>>>>>>> can return or not?

*I will try to be perfectly clear*
Not-a-logic-sentence(L,x) ≡ (~True(L,x) ∧ ~True(L,~x)) >>>>>>>>>>

In other words, you have no idea of how to express you concept >>>>>>>>> in the terms of how a logic would be built with it, as you just >>>>>>>>> don't undertand how logic works.

That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of >>>>>>>> its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by >>>>>>>> truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using
language}
is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed >>>>>>>> using formal language and formalized natural language.

Word salad.

No such model exists, so you are basing your system on faery dust. >>>>>>>
You just don't understand what you are talking about, and think
Formal Logic is just like the abstract philosophy you seemed to
have studied a bit of.

Formal logic is a subset of this.

Nope. Uses different (and stricter) rules.

That you don't understand this just shows your ignorance, and is why
you can't actually PROVE anything because the standard of proof is
one of the big differences.

Not-a-logic-sentence(PA,g) ≡ (~True(PA,g) ∧ ~True(PA,~g))
There are no truth preserving operations in PA to g or to ~g

https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

Within my analytical framework this Tarski sentence is merely
self-contradictory

(3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True. // (1) and (2) combined >>>>

In other words, you don't understand his PROOF, Note (1) and (2) are
NOT "assumptions" but statements of facts from ealier in the work.

It does not matter how Tarski derived the self-contradictory
expression it only matters that all such expressions cannot
possibly be propositions.

Yes, it does.

First, it is NOT "self-contradictory", that is just your lie based on
WROMG definitions, that by repeating it, you just prove yourself to be
an ignorant pathological liar.

Second, If the statement has been PROVEN from "true" statements, then
if it actually being contradictory says that something actually
assumed in the proof is incorrect.

Fortunately, the statement isn't contradictory.

When a proof is done correctly it must be a sequence of truth
preserving operations or it it wrong.

Right, and to show it is wrong you need to point out the step that is
incorrect, not just that you don't like the answer.

If you can't find the erroneous step to get them, you have no
counter to his statement.

*self-contradictory expressions must be rejected*

But it isn't self-contradictory, except when you apply your incorrect
definitions. That shows YOUR definitions are wrong and must be rejected.

There are no truth preserving operations in Tarski's
theory to x if and only if There are truth preserving
operations in Tarski's theory to x

Nope, there is no FINITE sequence of truth preserving operations (a
proof) to x if and only if there are a (possibly infinite) sequence
of truth perserving operations to x (meaning it is a true statement).

This is possible if the only sequences of truth preserving
operations to x are infinite in length.

There cannot be any infinite sequence of truth preserving operations
affirming operations that no finite sequence of truth preserving
operations exists in this case.

Wrong. And

Merely an assertion entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.
You cannot show the steps of how I am wrong because I am correct.

OF course there can.

You haven't show ANY steps of how you get to your conclusion, so of
course I can't point out which one is wrong. because you have given ZERO
ground for it, just your INCORRECT claim of what truth means.

A clear example is Godel's G. It is shown with an infinite number of
steps in F, as we can check each Natural Number individually (all
countably infinite number of them), with each check taking a finite
number of steps. Each of these tests will show that that given Natural
Number n fails to pass the given Primative Recursive Relationship, so we
have a path of infinite length that establishes it.

There can NOT be a finite length path of truth preserving steps that
show show that no such number exists, as any such path could be encoded
into a number that satisfies that Primative Recursive Relationship. Thus
there can not be a finite proof of it.

Also, the statement can not be false, as if it was false, then there, by definition, WOULD be a number that satisfies the relationship, but by
the structure of that relationship, and such number becomes a proof that
NO such number exists.

When there is a cycle in the directed graph of an evaluation sequence
of an expression (unlike the proving the Goldbach conjecture) there
is zero progress toward the goal.

But who says there is such a cycle?

You are just showing your stupidity.

Insults do not count as supporting reasoning.
You cannot show the steps of how I am wrong because I am correct.

?- LP = not(true_(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.

That Prolog can't handle it does not mean it isn't true.

Prolog shows that there is a cycle in the directed graph
of its evaluation sequence proving that the expression is
cannot possibly be resolved in any logic system.

And all that proves is that PROLOG can't handle that class of logic.

Since it doesn't even handle all of first order logic, that isn't
surprizing.

You can either comprehend this or fail to comprehend
to, disagreement is error.

Oh, I understand the meaning of it, but I don't think you do. If you try
to express higher order logic to Prolog, you introduce cycles that are
not actually there.

You have been told that many times in the past,

Stupid people came to believe a lie like Trump's "big lie"
when it is repeated over and over. I am not stupid.

And stupdi people belive the lie that H is correct in deciding a halting computation can somehow be correctly decided as non-halting.

and you continued falling back to such statements just shows how
stupid you are,

It proves that you stubbornly refuse to learn the truth.

No, YOU refuse to learn the truth. Youy statements are not true, and
have no actual basis. This is clear because you are unable to actually
form a real proof of anything you say.

 and that you are nothing but an ignorant pathological lying idiot.

You condemn yourself to Hell by saying this, repent before its
too late.

Nope, since I haven't lied, but you have, and worse, so you seem to have
an express ticket to there.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 7/8/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/8/2024 6:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/8/24 9:13 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/8/2024 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 10:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

Is "Not-a-logic-sentence" a truth value that True, of >>>>>>>>>>>>> ~false can return or not?

*I will try to be perfectly clear*
Not-a-logic-sentence(L,x) ≡ (~True(L,x) ∧ ~True(L,~x)) >>>>>>>>>>>>

In other words, you have no idea of how to express you
concept in the terms of how a logic would be built with it, >>>>>>>>>>> as you just don't undertand how logic works.

That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of >>>>>>>>>> its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by >>>>>>>>>> truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using >>>>>>>>>> language}
is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is
expressed
using formal language and formalized natural language.

Word salad.

No such model exists, so you are basing your system on faery dust. >>>>>>>>>
You just don't understand what you are talking about, and think >>>>>>>>> Formal Logic is just like the abstract philosophy you seemed to >>>>>>>>> have studied a bit of.

Formal logic is a subset of this.

Nope. Uses different (and stricter) rules.

That you don't understand this just shows your ignorance, and is
why you can't actually PROVE anything because the standard of
proof is one of the big differences.

Not-a-logic-sentence(PA,g) ≡ (~True(PA,g) ∧ ~True(PA,~g))
There are no truth preserving operations in PA to g or to ~g

https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

Within my analytical framework this Tarski sentence is merely
self-contradictory

(3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True. // (1) and (2) combined >>>>>>

In other words, you don't understand his PROOF, Note (1) and (2)
are NOT "assumptions" but statements of facts from ealier in the
work.

It does not matter how Tarski derived the self-contradictory
expression it only matters that all such expressions cannot
possibly be propositions.

Yes, it does.

First, it is NOT "self-contradictory", that is just your lie based
on WROMG definitions, that by repeating it, you just prove yourself
to be an ignorant pathological liar.

Second, If the statement has been PROVEN from "true" statements,
then if it actually being contradictory says that something actually
assumed in the proof is incorrect.

Fortunately, the statement isn't contradictory.

When a proof is done correctly it must be a sequence of truth
preserving operations or it it wrong.

Right, and to show it is wrong you need to point out the step that
is incorrect, not just that you don't like the answer.

If you can't find the erroneous step to get them, you have no
counter to his statement.

*self-contradictory expressions must be rejected*

But it isn't self-contradictory, except when you apply your
incorrect definitions. That shows YOUR definitions are wrong and
must be rejected.

There are no truth preserving operations in Tarski's
theory to x if and only if There are truth preserving
operations in Tarski's theory to x

Nope, there is no FINITE sequence of truth preserving operations
(a proof) to x if and only if there are a (possibly infinite)
sequence of truth perserving operations to x (meaning it is a true >>>>>> statement).

This is possible if the only sequences of truth preserving
operations to x are infinite in length.

There cannot be any infinite sequence of truth preserving operations >>>>> affirming operations that no finite sequence of truth preserving
operations exists in this case.

Wrong. And

Merely an assertion entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.
You cannot show the steps of how I am wrong because I am correct.

OF course there can.

You haven't show ANY steps of how you get to your conclusion, so of
course I can't point out which one is wrong. because you have given
ZERO ground for it, just your INCORRECT claim of what truth means.

A clear example is Godel's G.

Wrong case.

Whats wrong with it,

If you say something can't happen, as someone shows even ONE example of
it happening, you are just proven wrong.

G, the statement that no Natural Number g exists that match the
particular Primative Recursive Relationship he develops for the system F
is show to be true because of an infinte set of steps that establish it,
and there is no finite set of steps to establish it, so it can not be
proven.

That PRR was specially constructed so that there could not be a finite
set of steps to prove it, as such a proof would end up providing the
counter example for the statement, and thus is couldn't be true.

And it can't be false, as then the counter example number provides the
correct proof that no such number exists, so that means that the system
had to have been inconsistent, but consistance is one of the
requirements for the system that Godel is working in.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 7/8/24 8:00 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:

Formal logic is a subset of this.
Not-a-logic-sentence(PA,g) ≡ (~True(PA,g) ∧ ~True(PA,~g))
There are no truth preserving operations in PA to g or to ~g

https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

Within my analytical framework this Tarski sentence is merely
self-contradictory

(3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True. // (1) and (2) combined

There are no truth preserving operations in Tarski's
theory to x if and only if There are truth preserving
operations in Tarski's theory to x

There cannot possibly be an infinite proof that proves
that there is no finite proof of Tarski x in Tarski's theory

Who says there needs to be a infinite proof, since there is no such thing.

As I said, one example of such an x is Godel's G.

The infinite proof of the Goldbach conjecture
(if it is true) continues to find more true
cases than it had before, thus makes progress
towards its never ending goal (if its true).

or, it continue to show that there is no counter examples.

"Progress" on an infinite path isn't really measurable.

The cycles in the following two cases never make any progress
towards any goal they are merely stuck in infinite loops.

Which just means you are on the wrong path. One wrong path doesn't me
that there is no path.

The Prolog unify_with_occurs_check test means that
LP is stuck in an infinite loop that makes no progress
towards resolution. I invented Minimal Type Theory to
see this, then I noticed that Prolog does the same thing.

Which is irrelevent, since Prolog can't handle the basics of the field
that Traski assumes.

?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.

LP := ~(L ⊢ LP)
00 ~ 01
01 ⊢ 01, 00
02 L

The cycle in the direct graph of LP is
an infinite loop that make no progress
towards the goal of evaluating LP as
true or false.

So?

Failure to prove by example doesn't show something isn't true.

You are just proving you are stupid and don't know what you are talking
about.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 7/8/24 8:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/8/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/8/24 8:00 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:

Formal logic is a subset of this.
Not-a-logic-sentence(PA,g) ≡ (~True(PA,g) ∧ ~True(PA,~g))
There are no truth preserving operations in PA to g or to ~g

https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

Within my analytical framework this Tarski sentence is merely
self-contradictory

(3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True. // (1) and (2) combined

There are no truth preserving operations in Tarski's
theory to x if and only if There are truth preserving
operations in Tarski's theory to x

There cannot possibly be an infinite proof that proves
that there is no finite proof of Tarski x in Tarski's theory

Who says there needs to be a infinite proof, since there is no such
thing.

As I said, one example of such an x is Godel's G.

The infinite proof of the Goldbach conjecture
(if it is true) continues to find more true
cases than it had before, thus makes progress
towards its never ending goal (if its true).

or, it continue to show that there is no counter examples.

"Progress" on an infinite path isn't really measurable.

The cycles in the following two cases never make any progress
towards any goal they are merely stuck in infinite loops.

Which just means you are on the wrong path. One wrong path doesn't me
that there is no path.

The Prolog unify_with_occurs_check test means that
LP is stuck in an infinite loop that makes no progress
towards resolution. I invented Minimal Type Theory to
see this, then I noticed that Prolog does the same thing.

Which is irrelevent, since Prolog can't handle the basics of the field
that Traski assumes.

?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.

LP := ~(L ⊢ LP)
00 ~ 01
01 ⊢ 01, 00
02 L

The cycle in the direct graph of LP is
an infinite loop that make no progress
towards the goal of evaluating LP as
true or false.

So?

Failure to prove by example doesn't show something isn't true.

You are just proving you are stupid and don't know what you are
talking about.

Every expression of language that cannot be proven
or refuted by any finite or infinite sequence of
truth preserving operations connecting it to its
meaning specified as a finite expression of language
is rejected.

So?

Tarski's x like Godel's G are know to be true by an infinite sequence of
truth preserving operations.

Godel's G is clear since we know the struture of the statement.

I would need to study Tarski's work a bit more to see if the proof gives
us an idea to bring that sequence down to baby steps you would understand.

We know it is true, as a result of the work that proved statements (1)
and (2), so there IS an infinite set of steps to it, we just might not
know what they are.

The fact you can't understand their existance, doesn't mean it isn't
there, just that you are too stupid to understand it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 7/10/24 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/10/2024 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/10/24 9:58 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/8/24 8:28 PM, olcott wrote:

Every expression of language that cannot be proven
or refuted by any finite or infinite sequence of
truth preserving operations connecting it to its
meaning specified as a finite expression of language
is rejected.

So?

Tarski's x like Godel's G are know to be true by an infinite
sequence of truth preserving operations.

Every time that you affirm your above error you prove
yourself to be a liar.

What error?

We know, that in the system the statements are made, tehre is an
infinite chain of truth preserving operationf from teh fundamental
truths of the sytsems to the conclusion.

We know that because in a meta-theory we can develop additional
knowledge allowing us to see the infinite chain, with something like
an induction property or something else that reduces the infinite to
finite.

On 7/8/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

No, infinite "proofs" determine TRUTH, not knowledge.

You could just say, "I didn't say that correctly"
and we would be done.

Right, an infinite "proof", in quotes because that is the term YOU
use, even though there is no such thing, but in actuality it is an
infinite chain of truth preserving operations  DO establish that
something is True in the system, but by being infinite, we can never
dirrectly follow that path to know it.

That was your mistake. You said that we could know it.

Because we can, by knowledge gained in the meta-system.

Knowledge can cross system boundries when the system are properly
related to allow it.

Do I have to repeat the word "know" in you quote below
100 times before you can see it?

No, because you don't seem to understand that we can KNOW something
about a system due to knowledge from a properly related system.

If you deny that, then your whole idea of a unversal knowldege system
breaks, as you can't get anything into it.

Tarski's x like Godel's G are know to be true
by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 7/10/24 9:58 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/8/24 8:28 PM, olcott wrote:

Every expression of language that cannot be proven
or refuted by any finite or infinite sequence of
truth preserving operations connecting it to its
meaning specified as a finite expression of language
is rejected.

So?

Tarski's x like Godel's G are know to be true by an infinite sequence
of truth preserving operations.

Every time that you affirm your above error you prove
yourself to be a liar.

What error?

We know, that in the system the statements are made, tehre is an
infinite chain of truth preserving operationf from teh fundamental
truths of the sytsems to the conclusion.

We know that because in a meta-theory we can develop additional
knowledge allowing us to see the infinite chain, with something like an induction property or something else that reduces the infinite to finite.

On 7/8/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

No, infinite "proofs" determine TRUTH, not knowledge.

You could just say, "I didn't say that correctly"
and we would be done.

Right, an infinite "proof", in quotes because that is the term YOU use,
even though there is no such thing, but in actuality it is an infinite
chain of truth preserving operations DO establish that something is
True in the system, but by being infinite, we can never dirrectly follow
that path to know it. But, there may be a meta-theory that gives us a
short-cut path (like in Godel or Tarski) where we know that the
statement is true, and thus can show that the infinite chain does exist.

The fact you can't understand that just shows your stupidity.

*I am going to keep hammering you on this over-and-over*
*I am going to keep hammering you on this over-and-over*
*I am going to keep hammering you on this over-and-over*

And I will keep on pointing out yor STUPID LIES.

People need to know that you lie in your reviews of my work
People need to know that you lie in your reviews of my work
People need to know that you lie in your reviews of my work

No, peopel will see that YOU are the pathological liar.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-07-10 13:58:42 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/8/24 8:28 PM, olcott wrote:

Every expression of language that cannot be proven
or refuted by any finite or infinite sequence of
truth preserving operations connecting it to its
meaning specified as a finite expression of language
is rejected.

So?

Tarski's x like Godel's G are know to be true by an infinite sequence
of truth preserving operations.

Every time that you affirm your above error you prove
yourself to be a liar.

It is quite obvious that you are the liar. You have not shown any error
above.

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)