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

On 3/1/25 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/1/2025 4:02 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/1/2025 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.
>

>
Then let's make a new term you're comfortable with.
>

 What I just said says it all. Anything else is a dishonest
dodge away from the point.
 Provable(common) has always made incomplete(math) impossible.
 

But it doesn't, as Provable(common) means that its truth can be SHOWN, and SHOWING is by definition a FINITE sequence (as we are finite beings).
Truth, on the other hand, can be established by an INFINITE sequence of steps, which would not constitute a proof.
That you keep repeating your error, without showing the error in the refutation, just indicates that you are just a blantant liar with a reckles disregard for the truth.
That you are so stupid that you can't even understand that you are stupid, and thus your words need to be considered as meaningless.
Note, this is not an "ad hominem" attack, as that is would be saying the primary reason to consider you wrong is an attribute of you person (the hominem) but I am pointing out the actual definitional reason you are wrong, and then pointing out that the fact you keep on saying it, shows you are stupid,
To label that as ad hominem just adds to the proof that you just don't understand what you are talking about, showing that you really are that stupid,