On 4/16/2026 7:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:It's actually an exercise in _reading comprehension_.On 04/16/2026 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:>On 4/16/2026 1:45 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:>On 04/16/2026 11:24 AM, olcott wrote:>On 4/16/2026 12:47 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:>On 04/16/2026 10:27 AM, olcott wrote:>On 4/16/2026 12:10 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:>On 04/16/2026 05:36 AM, olcott wrote:>On 4/16/2026 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 15/04/2026 14:57, olcott wrote:>On 4/15/2026 1:54 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 14/04/2026 16:48, olcott wrote:>>>
It is known that the truth value of the Goldbach
conjecture is unknown this is out-of-scope for
>
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
If there is a finite back-chained interference path from
Goldbach
conjecture to the body of knowledge then how it is out of
scope ?
The current path is not finite.
The current path is to search every even
natural number greater than 2 to see if
it is the sum of two prime numbers.
An inifinite paths are irrelevant to the question,
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
>
*The above has been the question for 28 years*
The truth value of the Goldbach conjecture is outside
the scope of the body of knowledge.
>
>
No it's not, various conjectures of Goldbach have models
of integers where they are so and models of integers where
they are not, that they are "independent" the "standard model"
It states that every even natural number greater
than 2 is the sum of two prime numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>
This is a YES/NO decision problem that cannot
possibly depend on any point of view, model
or difference terms-of-the-art.
>
No it's not. There are matters of number theory about
the qualities of _the entire system_ where, for examples,
whether the naturals are compact and make for fixed-point,
whether the direct-sum of infinitely-many naturals is
empty or infinity, about thusly whether there's a point-at-infinity
in "the naturals", naturally, whether you like it or not,
there's a prime at infinity or a composite at infinity,
whether or not according to the operations it's an even number,
then as with regards to whether or not that is or isn't
a sum of two primes, or about whether "addition" and
"multiplication", hold together "at infinity", for example
about notions like as from p-adic integers, where they don't.
>
For example, the direct-sum of the infinitely-many integers
would be one way, yet usually standardly it's _defined_
the opposite way, then that thusly you have an axiom in
your mathematics you didn't even know you had.
>
>
>
Changing the subject with Obfuscation away from the
fact that every even natural number greater than 2
is the sum of two prime numbers is only TRUE or FALSE
does not even seem to be honest.
>
No, it's _proving_ that it's _not_ a "yes/no decision problem".
>
I suppose you could omit _all_ super-classical results from
mathematics,
since they readily have constructible accounts
for and against that dispute each other and themselves.
>
We could call that an "ant", then, a frozen ant.
>
>
What are the ultra simplified details of exactly
how every even natural number greater than 2 is
the sum of two prime numbers can possibly be other
than TRUE or FALSE?
>
Give me one concrete example of
Exactly one natural number paired
with exactly two other natural numbers
where Goldbach is neither TRUE nor FALSE.
>
Well, you've been talking about Goedel's incompleteness
Can you have a laser focus on just exactly the
one 100% specific point above?
>
The first words that are no so laser focused will
cause me to totally ignore everything else that you
have said.
>
An OCD degree of laser focus is the source of all
creative genius in the world.
>
Reading as an exercise involves multiple passes of
parsing. There is no actual finality in statement.
It's un-scientific to presume declarative fact.
Text is always a fragment. The context is always
existent, and the text is always outside of it.
No.
An "OCD degree of laser focus" is a cat following a dot,
not a thinker having a thought.
Does everybody remember the old one where the robot goes
"bzzzt, does not compute, error, error", then smoke
starts coming out of its ears and and it fries and dies?
So, that's a common issue with all these bots here
that infest Usenet, anything awry then they just
go "bzzt" or "does not compute" or "nonsense" or
"gibberish" then they fry and die.
"That was the equation!" - Ruk
Reading comprehension and logical comprehension is
much alike. There's always a filter.
It's all one text.
So, recall all the text.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.