Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 7/2/24 9:28 PM, olcott wrote:It is as simple as this with Gödelization and diagonalizationOn 7/2/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Nope, you just don't understand what Tarski is saying,>>
Note, a lot of these proofs are about a system and a meta-system based on it, and the meta-system has been carefully constructed so that Truths in the meta-system, that don't refernce things just in the meta system, ARE true in the original system.
>
No that is merely a false assumption.
Tarski tries to get away with this exact same thing
and his proof is 100,000-fold easier to understand.
>Nope.
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>
To the best of my current knowledge it can be
accurately summed up as this:
>
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
>The fact that you need to try to "reduce" statements, and get the meaning wrong, just shows you lack the necessary prerequisites to understand the logic.
The outer sentence in his meta-theory is true because
the inner sentence in his theory is not a truth-bearer.
>
I have never encountered any logician that pays any heed
what-so-ever to the notion of truth-bearer or truth-maker.
>
It is as if they take their incorrect foundations of logic
as inherently infallible making no attempt what-so-ever to
double check this false assumption.
>
>
>
So, where is that Diagonalization proof you said you had.I think that Diagonalization is nonsense yet it is the basis that
Until you provide it, or admit you lied about it, I won't help you with your other misunderstandings.--
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.