Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2

On 4/18/24 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/18/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/18/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>
*Parphrased as*
Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that the
formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false.
Which shows that X is undecidable in F.

>
Nope.
>
Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
>

>
Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.

>
But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING.
>
Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F.
>
You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually is, because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and don't even understand that.
>
Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number that has a specific property. Until you understand that, your continued talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving your absoulute STUPIDITY.
>

>
A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary
bearer of truth or falsity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>

>
Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
>

>
If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop
talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names
if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing
out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
>
This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
hear nothing form me.
>

>
I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.
>
You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.
>
It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that satisfies a particular property, which will be a truth bearing statement (The number must either exist or it doesn't)
>
THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.
>

>
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*

>
Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but incompletenwss, which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read what you said above).
>
INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that are true.
>
Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with undecidability,

>
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
>
https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf

>
WHERE does he say that GODEL INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM directly says anything about DECIDABILITY?
>
Yes, there is a link between completeness and decidability, as an incomplete system has an undecidable problem, that of the proof

 *In other words you are totally retracting the line that I replied to*
 >>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with
 >>> undecidability,
 That is good because I totally agree with the preceding line that you said.

No, because Godel was NOT talking about "undecidability" but "Incompleteness".
Even though there is a tie between the two topics, they are separate topics.
This just shows that your native lanuguage is just LIES, as that is all you can focus on.
Note, you have done NOTHING to refute all the errors I pointed out about your statements of Godel's proof, so you initial statement in the paraphrase is still shown to be a LIE, and your whole proof just incorrect and unsound, as you are by your basic nature.
Your concept of "Correct Reasoning" is NOT "Correct", or even really based on "Reasoning", because you just don't understand either concept.

 

generator for that statement, and a system with an undeciable problem is incomplete, as if we could prove the correct answer, then a theorem prover could compute the answer, but they are different things.
>
And your complaint just shows you don't understand that.
>

>

in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative Recursive Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in finite number of operations).
>
So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or doesn't know the difference in the topics).
>
I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't match your subject, because I understand your general confusion on the topics.
>
So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong word, which just shows your total ignorance about what you are talking about.
>
Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put together a coherent argument?
>
You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about Godel's argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you have no idea what he said, but try to put your own false words into his mouth,
>
>

>

That you repeat the error after being corrected, because apparently you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
>
You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer to it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic system derived from F.
>
The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, so it seems worthless to repeat them every time.

>

>

>

>