Re: Concise rebuttal of incompleteness and undecidability

On 6/2/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:

Because of Quine's paper: https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html most
philosophers have been confused into believing that there is no such
thing as expressions of language that are {true on the basis of their
meaning}.
 The unique contribution I have made to this is that the semantic meaning
of these expressions is always specified by other expressions. When we
can derive x or ~x by applying truth preserving operations to a set of
semantic meanings then this perfectly aligns with Wittgenstein's concise
critique of Gödel: https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
 Unless P or ~P has been proved in Russell's system P has no truth value
and thus cannot be a proposition according to the law of the excluded
middle.
 As Richard keeps pointing out:
Sometimes this "proof" may require an infinite sequence of steps.
 

WHich means it isn't a Proof, so you have an unprovable truth.
So, you seem to admit that, and that you have been wrong about your claim that truth must be provable.
Maybe your problem is you don't know what a proof actually is, which explains why you can't actually prove anything.