Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 7/15/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 7/15/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:There is no "infinite proof".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 ???
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.