Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?

On 7/18/24 8:58 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/18/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/18/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/17/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/17/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/17/2024 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/17/24 11:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/17/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/17/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/17/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/17/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/17/2024 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/17/24 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/17/2024 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/17/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/17/2024 7:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/17/24 8:02 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.
 >
>

>
*From immediately above* [somethings] 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.
>

>
But it is known to be (true by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations)
>

>
Some cases such as the Goldbach conjecture's truth or falsity may
require in infinite sequence of truth preserving operations as
their truthmaker. In these cases the truth or falsity remains
permanently unknown.
>

>
Unless there is a meta-theory that can be discovered that allows the infinite chain to be reduced to a finite proof.
>

>
You miss the point. True (or false) and unknowable.
>

No, YOU miss the point, it could be:
>
False (which in this case must be provable, since false means the existance of a counter example, that can be show to make the conjecture false in a finite number of steps.
>

>
OK
>

True, and provable in the Theory.
>
True, and not provable in the Theory, but provable in a Meta-Theory that transfers knowledge to the Theory.
>
True, and not provably anywhere, and thus unknowable.
>

>
True by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations,
(thus having a truth-maker) yet unknowable.

>
You don't seem to understand that the last two cases are decidedly different.
>

I am saying that ONLY an infinite sequence shows that it is true.
>

>
Which means you still don't understadn about the "System" part o fa Formal System.
>
Like Godel's G, only has an infinite chain IN THE SYSTEM, so is unprovable in the system, but has a finite chain in the meta,

>
I didn't know that the Goldbach conjecture had a finite chain in meta.
No one else seems to know that.
>

>
I didn't say it did, I said it MIGHT, and then it would be like Godel's G. I listed FOUR possible cases for the Goldbach conjecture, and only one of them leaves it unknowable, but two leave it unprovable or unrefutable in the system.
>
It can be hard to find a meta-system to do the trick, since there could litterlaly be an infinite number of them,
>
You seem to have a serious English comprehension issue.

>
*For the last forty messages or so*
I have only ever been talking about the one case where an
ONLY infinite sequence of truth preserving operations shows
that things such as the Goldbach conjecture are true, thus
true and unknowable.
>

>
>
Which is a case that is impossible to know about, and you get into the definitional question,

>
Not at all. That is the only case that I have been talking about
>
I have only ever been talking about the one case where
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations shows
that things such as the Goldbach conjecture are true, thus
true and unknowable.
>
I can repeat "ONLY" 500 more times if that would help
you notice that I said it at least once.
>

>
But that is under-specified. Is "Only" referring to

 One thing in the whole universe.
 

WHICH "Universe".
The one that is the Formal System, or the collection of all possible Formal system so you include all the Meta-Systems?
You still seem stuck on your lie that Formal systems need to be tied to "our universe", which they do not need to be.
This just shows your fundamental misunderstanding about what you are talking about.