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

On 3/1/2025 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.
 

So you've just admitted that you intend to lie by abusing terminology by failing to provide the requested definition (which you refused after 6 such requests) as outlined below.
Also the fact that you trimmed the below further shows your intent to lie and deceive.
It seems that YOU are the one engaging in Newspeak by limiting vocabulary in refusing to supply the requested definition.
I'll give you one more chance, this being the 7th time it was requested:
What term would you use to describe a true statement that has *only* infinite connection to its truthmaker?
 >> What term would you use to describe a true statement that has *only* an
 >> infinite connection to its truthmaker?
 >>
 >> Failure to provide such a term will be taken as your admission that you
 >> intend to lie by ambiguous or incorrect use of language to push your ideas.
 >>