Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH --- clueless

On 7/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 9:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
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, you just don't understand what Tarski is saying,
>

>
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"

>
Nope.
>

>
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.
>
>
>

>
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.
>

>
It is as simple as this with Gödelization and diagonalization
if is 100% impossible to see the inference steps thus making
analysis of these steps impossible.

 That isn't a PROOF, just an admission of your own stupidity.
 And where is that Diagonalization proof that shows Godel wrong, or are you admitting you are just a LIAR and never had one?
 

>
The Tarski proof directly provides the detailed inference steps.
So it is not that I do under understand the Gödel proof it is that
this proof is opaque completely hiding all of the important details.

 No, you miss the fact that you are starting in the MIDDLE of an arguement, and that what you are thinking as a assumption is a proven statement (which you don't understand)
 

You can't correct my error because you know that you have no understanding of the Tarski proof. It is the same tactic as
always dishonestly deflect rather than make any attempt to
correct to hide the fact that you are clueless.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer