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

On 7/15/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/15/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/15/24 10:06 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/15/2024 3:48 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-11 13:51:47 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
That is included in my "not shown above", in particular the word "proofs".
>

>
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.
 >
>
We cannot know that anything is true by an infinite
sequence of truth preserving operations as Richard
falsely claims above.

>
You are just mixing up your words because you don't understd that wrores. amnd just making yourself into a LIAR.
>
Our KNOWLEDGE that the statement is true, comes from a finite proof in the meta system.

 Thus zero knowledge comes from the infinite proof
You spelled "known" incorrectly as "know" yet claimed
that knowledge comes form an infinite proof.
 You can't even pay attention to your own words ???
 

There is no "infinite proof".
You just can't read, it seems. Maybe you just don't understand what truth and proof actually mean.
The fact we know there exists an infinite chain comes from the fact we have a finite proof in the meta, and the knowledge that this knowledge transfers from the meta to the original system by how the meta was constructed.
Yes, you can't KNOW something that is only established by an infinite chain of steps, but you can know it if there exists in another system a finite proof and knowledge of transfersbility of that knowledge.
You are just getting yourself stuck in knots with your ignorance. All you are showing is the limitations of your ability to think about things.
There is nothing wrong with my words, just you understanding of them because you don't understand the basics that the words are based on.
Because you made yourself STUPID because you decided you didn't want to learn the topics because you were afraid the knwoledge would brainwash you, so you brainwashed yourself with stupidity instead.