Sujet : Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Hand in the cookie jar --- bald faced liar
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 18. Jul 2024, 02:02:44
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v79m35$22le2$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure
Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure