Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Olcott is proved a liar

On 7/11/24 9:51 AM, olcott wrote:

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.

Nipe, just more of your lies

 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.
 

Right, the fact that in the meta, there is a finite proof of a transferable property to PA, gives us the knowledge that G is true in PA as well as MM. But still leaves us without a proof IN PA of the statement.
You just don't understand the nature for Formal Logic and meta-systems.