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

On 2/28/25 5:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/28/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-26 01:33:48 +0000, olcott said:
>

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, that merely means that "true in the system" is incomplete in some
systems (e.g., natural numbers). There are sentences that are true in
practical applications of the system but not in the system itself.
That is not a defect as it does not prevent useful practical aplications.
>

 The bottom line here is that expressions that do not have
a truth-maker are always untrue. Logic screws this up by
overriding the common meaning of terms with incompatible
meanings. Provable(common) means has a truth-maker.
  

But the problem is you try to make statements that have been shown to have a truth-make untrue, because you don't understand the conneciton to the truth-maker.
You have even admktted that you think logic is just broken, but you continue to try to use it, showing you are just a stupid hypocrite.
Yes Provable(common means it has a truth-maker, but only in a sufficient manner, not a necessary manner.
Things can have a truth-maker but not be provable, since provable implies knowable, and thus must be based on a finite chain of proof.
Things exist that need an infinite chain to show, which is not a proof but does make that thing true,
Your problem is you don't understand the infinite, and thus can't understand that sort of truth.
Thus, you just stupidly lie about things that you are ignorant of, because you can't actually understand the meaning of the word truth.
And you are the one that thinks they are "God" who is by nature an infinite being, and thus the one that best understand that which you have no understanding of.
Sorry, you are just proving that you are nothing but a pathetic pathological lying idiot with no understanding of the actual meaning of what he says, but only the glimpses of them when someone distills them done to infintile levels, which, by necessity, misses out on the fine details and distinctions, that you are just unaware of.
I pity you, as you are just showing how low a man can get in his ability to thinks.