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

On 3/1/25 4:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/1/2025 6:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/28/25 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/28/2025 8:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/27/25 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/27/2025 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/27/25 9:33 AM, olcott wrote:>>

Yes logic is broken when it does not require a truth-maker
for every truth. It is also broken when its idiomatic meaning
of the term "provable" diverges from the meaning of the term
truth-maker. That every truth must have a truth-maker is outside
the scope of what you understand.

>
But it does, it just you don't seem to understand what a truth makee is?
>
Where was a statement without a truth-maker used?
>

>
Logic remains clueless about the philosophical
notion of truth makers and truth bearers and this is
why logic gets these things incorrectly.
>

>
No, you remain clueless about the notion of Logic and its rules.
>

>
Only because logic defines "True" in a way that goes against the
way that True really works is it impossible to define a truth
predicate in logic.

>
No, it doesn't
>

>
The biggest mistake that logic makes is failing to understand
that an expression can only be true when it has a truth bearer.

>
No it doesn't, it just allows the truth bearer to be an infinite number of steps away from the statement.
>

 When we don't make a screwy term-of-the-art meaning
of provable(math) that diverges from provable(common)
{whatever the Hell makes X true} then incompleteness(math)
ceases to exist.
 

What is divergent?
Proveable(common) is *NOT* "whatever make X true", but what SHOWS X to be true, and to show something requires the showing to be a finite arguement, as we can't "see" an infinite one.
So, your problem is just you don't understand the meaning of the words you are using.