Sujet : Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Richard is proved wrong
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 11. Jul 2024, 14:51:47
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v6oo1j$2fuva$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…