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

On 7/16/2024 10:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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).
 

That is incorrect. If for example the truth of the Goldbach conjecture
was known to be true or false by some finite sequence this does not
make it known by any infinite sequence.

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.

You can't even catch your own direct contradictions
thus proving your critique of my work is not competent.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer