Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology providing situational context.

On 3/21/25 9:44 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/21/2025 4:33 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 21/03/2025 08:11, Mikko wrote:
>
<snip>
>

Another part of human knowledge is that there are fools that try to
argue against proven theorems.

>
Well, if it ain't proven it ain't yet a theorem. But is that enough?
>
The background to the work of Church, Turing, Gödel and the like is Hilbert's second problem: "The compatibility of the arithmetical axioms", and the background to /that/ problem is that in the late 19th century mathematicians were occasionally coming up with proofs of X, only to discover in the literature that not-X had already been proved. The question then was which proof had the bug?
>
But what if they were /both/ right? It was an obvious worry, and so arose the great question: is mathematics consistent?
>
And Gödel proved not only that it isn't, but that it can't be.
>
Fortunately, to date inconsistency has tended to surface only in corner cases like the Halting Problem, but Gödel's Hobgoblin hovers over mathematics to this day.
>

 When a formal system begins with the basic facts of human
general knowledge expressed using language and can derive
each element of the set of human general knowledge that can
be expressed using language on the basis of these basic facts
by applying only truth preserving operations then undecidability
and incompleteness are impossible.
 

Except that, as explained, the "basic facts of human general knowledge" do not define a consistan logical system.
All you are doing is showing that you don't understand what you are talking about and just assume that some mythical Truth Fairy can straighten out your mess and make it right.
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity and ignorance. Since you have admitted that you aren't using the proper definition of core terms, everything you say needs to be treated as the FRAUD that it is.