Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception --- Ultimate Foundation of Truth

On 2/25/25 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/25/25 8:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 5:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/25/25 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 12:15 PM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 24 Feb 2025 20:02:49 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/24/2025 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/24/25 6:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/23/25 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/23/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/23/25 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/22/2025 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/22/25 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/22/2025 3:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-22 04:44:35 +0000, olcott said:

On 2/21/2025 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/21/25 6:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/20/2025 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-18 03:59:08 +0000, olcott said:

>

Sure I do.
A Systems is semantically sound if every statement that can be proven
is actually true by the systems semantics,

That is very good.
>

in other words, the system doesn't allow the proving of a false
statement.

That is not too bad yet ignores that some expressions might not have
any truth value.

Which has nothing to do with "soundness".

When any system assumes that every expression is true or false and is
capable of encoding expressions that are neither IT IS STUPIDLY WRONG.

>

In honour of Gödel this is usually called "incomplete".
>

Where "incomplete" has always been an idiom for stupid wrong.
>

>
No, only in your faulty logic.
>
Incomplete means that there are some truths that can't be proven in the system.
>

>
That comes from stupidly failing to require {true in the system}
to require {proven in the system}. Fix this one stupid mistake
and all of incompleteness goes away.
>

>
No, it is stupid to require that true in the system means proven.
>
Such a system can be proven to have a very limited domain of applicability.
>

 If an expression of language has no truth maker then
it is impossibly true. That you have no idea what a
truth maker is forms no rebuttal what-so-ever.
 

That you make those lies just shows that you are just a pathological liar.
You assume people who say thihgs you don't understand makes them liars, when in truth, they show that you are atupid.
I never said that something without a truth maker could be true.
The problem is that the statement True(LP) is false *IS* the truth maker that makes LP true (or needs to be based on the truthmakes that make LP true).
And for Godel, the truth makers are the infinite set of evaluations of the relationship for every possible Natural Number. G doesn't lack a truth maker, it just has an infinite chain of them, so it can't be proven finitely (which is what proofs need to be).
YOu are just proving your stupidity,