Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : sci.logic comp.theory
Date : 11. Jul 2024, 02:33:50
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <18f44ac99398cb1f7f1ffc1786a510931e5bb6f9@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/10/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2024 7:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
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.
>
 Then it is no longer an infinite proof oh dim one.
It is a finite proof in another system.
Right, ANOTHER SYSTEM. Godel's proof is that there is a statment that is true in the system it is in with no proof IN THAT SYSTEM.
Incompleteness is about a SPECIFIC SYSTEM having true statements IN IT, what don't have proofs of them IN IT.
You don't seem to understand that difference.
Likely because you just don't understand what formal system are.

 I am going to rename this post so that we don't Hijack
Mild Shock's post.
 

Date Sujet#  Auteur
8 Jul 24 * Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure83Richard Damon
8 Jul 24 `* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure82olcott
8 Jul 24  `* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure81Richard Damon
8 Jul 24   `* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure80olcott
8 Jul 24    `* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure79olcott
8 Jul 24     +* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure7Richard Damon
8 Jul 24     i`* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure6olcott
8 Jul 24     i `* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure5Richard Damon
8 Jul 24     i  `* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure4olcott
9 Jul 24     i   `* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure3Richard Damon
9 Jul 24     i    `* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure2olcott
9 Jul 24     i     `- Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure1Richard Damon
9 Jul 24     `* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure71olcott
9 Jul 24      `* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure70Richard Damon
9 Jul 24       `* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure69olcott
9 Jul 24        `* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure68Richard Damon
9 Jul 24         +* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- Richard contradicts himself6olcott
9 Jul 24         i`* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- Richard contradicts himself5Richard Damon
9 Jul 24         i `* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- Richard contradicts himself4olcott
9 Jul 24         i  `* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- Olcott lies as he POOPs himself3Richard Damon
9 Jul 24         i   `* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- Richard caught in contradiction2olcott
9 Jul 24         i    `- Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- Olcott shows his stupidity.1Richard Damon
9 Jul 24         +* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- Richard caught in inescapable contradiction5olcott
9 Jul 24         i`* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- Olcott caught in inescapable contradiction4Richard Damon
9 Jul 24         i `* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- Richard caught in inescapable contradiction3olcott
9 Jul 24         i  +- Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- Olcott caught in inescapable lie1Richard Damon
9 Jul 24         i  `- Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- Olcott caught in inescapable contradiction1Richard Damon
9 Jul 24         +* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- Richard contradicts himself right here3olcott
9 Jul 24         i`* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- Olcott doesn't understand about formal systems and meta2Richard Damon
9 Jul 24         i `- Shut the Fuck Up Richard Damon and olcott1Mild Shock
10 Jul 24         +* Richard contradicts himself about infinite proofs2olcott
10 Jul 24         i`- Re: Olcott doesn't understand meta-systems1Richard Damon
10 Jul 24         `* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure51olcott
11 Jul 24          +* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure11Richard Damon
11 Jul 24          i`* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure10olcott
11 Jul 24          i `* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure9Richard Damon
11 Jul 24          i  `* Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge8olcott
11 Jul 24          i   `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge7Richard Damon
11 Jul 24          i    `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge6olcott
11 Jul 24          i     `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge5Richard Damon
11 Jul 24          i      `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge4olcott
11 Jul 24          i       `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge3Richard Damon
11 Jul 24          i        `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge2olcott
12 Jul 24          i         `- Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge, but do define Truth!1Richard Damon
11 Jul 24          `* Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure39Mikko
11 Jul 24           `* Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Richard is proved wrong38olcott
12 Jul 24            +- Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Olcott is proved a liar1Richard Damon
15 Jul 24            `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Richard is proved wrong36Mikko
15 Jul 24             `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Richard is proved wrong35olcott
16 Jul 24              +* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Olcott is proved wrong33Richard Damon
16 Jul 24              i`* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Olcott is proved wrong32olcott
16 Jul 24              i `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Olcott is proved wrong31Richard Damon
16 Jul 24              i  `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Richard can't pay attention to his won words30olcott
17 Jul 24              i   `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- OLCOTT can't pay attention to words29Richard Damon
17 Jul 24              i    `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Hand in the cookie jar28olcott
17 Jul 24              i     +- Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Olcott's Hand in the cookie jar1Richard Damon
17 Jul 24              i     +* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Hand in the cookie jar --- pants on fire6olcott
17 Jul 24              i     i+* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Hand in the cookie jar --- pants on fire3Richard Damon
17 Jul 24              i     ii`* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Hand in the cookie jar --- pants on fire2olcott
17 Jul 24              i     ii `- Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Hand in the cookie jar --- pants on fire1Richard Damon
17 Jul 24              i     i`* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Hand in the cookie jar --- pants on fire2olcott
18 Jul 24              i     i `- Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Hand in the cookie jar --- pants on fire, is Olcott1Richard Damon
18 Jul 24              i     `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Hand in the cookie jar --- bald faced liar20olcott
18 Jul 24              i      `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge Peter Olcott's Hand in the cookie jar --- bald faced liar19Richard Damon
18 Jul 24              i       `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?18olcott
18 Jul 24              i        `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?17Richard Damon
18 Jul 24              i         `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?16olcott
18 Jul 24              i          `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?15Richard Damon
18 Jul 24              i           `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?14olcott
18 Jul 24              i            `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?13Richard Damon
18 Jul 24              i             `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?12olcott
18 Jul 24              i              `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?11Richard Damon
18 Jul 24              i               `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?10olcott
18 Jul 24              i                `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?9Richard Damon
18 Jul 24              i                 `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?8olcott
18 Jul 24              i                  `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?7Richard Damon
18 Jul 24              i                   `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?6olcott
18 Jul 24              i                    `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?5Richard Damon
18 Jul 24              i                     `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?4olcott
19 Jul 24              i                      `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?3Richard Damon
19 Jul 24              i                       `* Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?2olcott
19 Jul 24              i                        `- Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?1Richard Damon
16 Jul 24              `- Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Richard is proved wrong1Mikko

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal