Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/9/2024 3:45 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/9/2024 2:53 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/9/2024 1:32 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

[ .... ]

"sound deductive inference" is incoherent garbage.

Is a very stupid thing to say.

You lied about it in your usual fashion, and I took your lies at face
value.

A conclusion IS ONLY true when applying truth
preserving operations to true premises.

I'm not sure what that adds to the argument.

It is already specified that a conclusion can only be
true when truth preserving operations are applied to
expressions of language known to be true.

That Gödel's proof didn't understand that this <is>
the actual foundation of mathematical logic is his
mistake.

You're lying by lack of expertise, again.  Gödel understood mathematical
logic full well (indeed, played a significant part in its development),

He utterly failed to understand that his understanding
of provable in meta-math cannot mean true in PA unless
also provable in PA according to the deductive inference
foundation of all logic.

You're lying in your usual fashion, namely by lack of expertise.  It is
entirely your lack of understanding.  If Gödel's proof was not rigorously
correct, his result would have been long discarded.  It is correct.

and he made no mistakes in his proof.  Had he done so, they would have
been identified by other mathematicians by now.

That other people shared his lack of understanding
is no evidence that it is not a lack of understanding.

Liar.

Unprovable in PA has always meant untrue in PA when
viewed within the deductive inference foundation of
mathematical logic.

Yet another lie by lack of expertise.

Truth is not any majority rule.
That everyone else got this wrong
is not my mistake.

You're deluded.  "Everybody else" did not get this wrong.  You are
incapable of understanding the issues.

Unprovable and untrue have been proven to be different things, whether
in the system of counting numbers or anything else containing it.

Generically epistemology always requires provability.

That's too many multi-syllabic words together for either of us to
understand any meaning from.

Mathematical knowledge is not allowed to diverge from
the way that knowledge itself generically works.

I don't know where you get that from.  Who precisely is determining what
mathematicians are allowed to do?  Epistemologists, perhaps?  Get real.

Whatever you might mean by "the deductive inference foundation of
mathematical logic" - is that another one of your "trademarks"?

Do you think that mathematical logic just popped
into existence fully formed out of no where?

Of course not.  It has had a long history of development complete with
since discarded dead ends and the occasional triumph, like any other
branch of mathematics or science.

All coherent knowledge fits into an inheritance hierarchy
knowledge ontology. A non fit means incoherence.

Again, a meaningless concatenation of too many multi-syllabic words.
Whatever it is, it's probably not true, and certainly has no relevance to
mathematics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).