Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Richard is proved wrong

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.
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.
 >
On 7/8/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > No, infinite "proofs" determine TRUTH, not knowledge.
What he mean was that finite meta-analysis can be a
proxy for an infinite proof.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer