Re: Olcott doesn't understand meta-systems

On 7/9/24 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:

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

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

 "are *know to be true* by an infinite sequence"
"are *know to be true* by an infinite sequence"
"are *know to be true* by an infinite sequence"
"are *know to be true* by an infinite sequence"
"are *know to be true* by an infinite sequence"

Right, because the existance of such a sequence was shown by a proof in the mete.

 On 7/8/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > No, infinite "proofs" determine TRUTH, not knowledge.
 *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 just prove you are an idiot because you don't understand the concept of a meta-system based on extending a system, which might be able to prove things about the original system that the original system couldn't prove itself.
Which might be because you just don't understand how Formal Logic works, and doesn't need to be tied to our "real world".