Sujet : Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Richard is proved wrong
De : mikko.levanto (at) *nospam* iki.fi (Mikko)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 15. Jul 2024, 09:48:08
Autres entêtes
Organisation : -
Message-ID : <v72no8$kinb$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
User-Agent : Unison/2.2
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".
-- Mikko
…