Sujet : Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : sci.logicDate : 05. Feb 2025, 17:03:21
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vo0249$2eqdl$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 2/5/2025 1:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-04 16:11:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/4/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-03 16:54:08 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 2/3/2025 9:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-03 03:30:46 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 2/2/2025 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-01 14:09:54 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 2/1/2025 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-01-31 13:57:02 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 1/31/2025 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-01-30 23:10:18 +0000, olcott said:
>
Within the entire body of analytical truth any expression of language that has no sequence of formalized semantic deductive inference steps from the formalized semantic foundational truths of this system are simply untrue in this system. (Isomorphic to provable from axioms).
>
If there is a misconception then you have misconceived something. It is well
known that it is possible to construct a formal theory where some formulas
are neither provble nor disprovable.
>
This is well known.
>
And well undeerstood. The claim on the subject line is false.
>
a fact or piece of information that shows that something
exists or is true:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/proof
>
We require that terms of art are used with their term-of-art meaning and
>
The fundamental base meaning of Truth[0] itself remains the same
no matter what idiomatic meanings say.
>
Irrelevant as the subject line does not mention truth.
Therefore, no need to revise my initial comment.
>
The notion of truth is entailed by the subject line:
misconception means ~True.
>
The title line means that something is misunderstood but that something
is not the meaning of "true".
>
It is untrue because it is misunderstood.
Mathematical incompleteness is not a claim so it cannot be untrue.
That mathematical incompleteness coherently exists <is> claim.
The closest that it can possibly be interpreted as true would
be that because key elements of proof[0] have been specified
as not existing in proof[math] math is intentionally made less
than complete.
When-so-ever any expression of formal or natural language X lacks
a connection to its truthmaker X remains untrue.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…