Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Hand in the cookie jar --- pants on fire

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Hand in the cookie jar --- pants on fire
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 17. Jul 2024, 04:36:20
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <0c8cd942bbb92cd093ed993c6d549a94680b38d9@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
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/16/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/16/2024 8:54 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/16/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/16/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/16/2024 6:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/15/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/15/24 10:06 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2024 3:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-11 13:51:47 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 7/11/2024 2:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
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.
>
>
Richard said the infinite proofs derive knowledge
and that infinite proofs never derive knowledge.
>
That is included in my "not shown above", in particular the word "proofs".
>
>
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.
 >
>
We cannot know that anything is true by an infinite
sequence of truth preserving operations as Richard
falsely claims above.
>
You are just mixing up your words because you don't understd that wrores. amnd just making yourself into a LIAR.
>
Our KNOWLEDGE that the statement is true, comes from a finite proof in the meta system.
>
Thus zero knowledge comes from the infinite proof
You spelled "known" incorrectly as "know" yet claimed
that knowledge comes form an infinite proof.
>
You can't even pay attention to your own words ???
>
>
There is no "infinite proof".
>
>
On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
*know to be true*
*know to be true*
*know to be true*
*know to be true*
*know to be true*
by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
>
Nothing can ever be known to be true
by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
>
>
Right, you just don't parse it right because you don't understand english.
>
the "by" refers to the closer referent.
>
it is KNOW TO BE
TRUE BY an infinite sequence of truth persevng operations.
>
The infinite sequence establish what makes it True, not what make the truth known.
>
>
In other words when you are caught with your hand in the
cookie jar stealing cookies you deny:
(a) That your hand is in the jar
(b) That there is a jar
(c) That there are any cookies
>
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.
 >
>
 Nothing is known to be true by an infinite sequence of truth
preserving operations.
 
Depends how you parse the sentence.
Godel's G, is known to be True (from the proof in MM), and that truth is created in PA by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
So, Godel's G is true by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations in PA, and we know that truth by a finite proof in MM and that knowledge can be shown to transfer to PA.
Thus, Godels G is know to be (true by an infinte sequence of operations in PA).
And those parenthesis are redundant, as the preposition by naturally attaches to the closest reasonable clause, which is the truth, and not the knowledge.
Thus, you are just showing a major lack of understanding of how English works, so your claims of "true by the meaning of words" becomes suspect, as clearly you don't understand how to build up the correct meaning of words.
Of course, thsi also seems to be INTENTIONAL, as a means to try to slip DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS in, just showing that you are an intentionally pathological liar.
Sorry to have to break it to you like that, but you are just showing that you have wasted your life on the lies you convinced yourself to beleive.

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