Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- OLCOTT can't pay
 attention to words
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 21:11:44 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0c7d3ace11c3a5a50ac7d7beb8b2091114ad82d3@i2pn2.org>
References: <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <2d0b6260615af8afac79ee8de57bcd45c2f2056f@i2pn2.org>
 <v6fk9p$mr5k$1@dont-email.me>
 <8bd5f2159853ff17ef81b27a85141bccc324e7d9@i2pn2.org>
 <v6fkrb$mr5k$2@dont-email.me> <v6fl9a$mr5k$3@dont-email.me>
 <v6huj5$12ktu$2@dont-email.me>
 <7387a77d06e4b00a1c27a447e2744a4f10b25e49@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i08a$12ktu$4@dont-email.me>
 <c81e1794259853dfd7724900ebfab484679615be@i2pn2.org>
 <v6m42j$1tj30$9@dont-email.me> <v6o0an$2bqh7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6oo1j$2fuva$2@dont-email.me> <v72no8$kinb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v73adp$mjis$19@dont-email.me>
 <359671d4a94f2caa82dc3c4884daa2ff73396a8d@i2pn2.org>
 <v74ner$13bn1$2@dont-email.me>
 <d72aa54790eaa53cbe11dfccca12c67249d0d9f6@i2pn2.org>
 <v75st8$19j7l$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 01:11:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3536827"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v75st8$19j7l$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4822
Lines: 92

On 7/16/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/16/2024 6:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/15/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/15/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/24 10:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/15/2024 3:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-11 13:51:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/11/2024 2:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-10 13:58:42 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/8/24 8:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Every expression of language that cannot be proven
>>>>>>>>>>> or refuted by any finite or infinite sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>> truth preserving operations connecting it to its
>>>>>>>>>>> meaning specified as a finite expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>> is rejected.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tarski's x like Godel's G are know to be true by an infinite 
>>>>>>>>>> sequence of truth preserving operations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every time that you affirm your above error you prove
>>>>>>>>> yourself to be a liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is quite obvious that you are the liar. You have not shown 
>>>>>>>> any error
>>>>>>>> above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richard said the infinite proofs derive knowledge
>>>>>>> and that infinite proofs never derive knowledge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is included in my "not shown above", in particular the word 
>>>>>> "proofs".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  > Tarski's x like Godel's G are know to be true by an
>>>>>  > infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
>>>>>  >
>>>>>
>>>>> We cannot know that anything is true by an infinite
>>>>> sequence of truth preserving operations as Richard
>>>>> falsely claims above.
>>>>
>>>> You are just mixing up your words because you don't understd that 
>>>> wrores. amnd just making yourself into a LIAR.
>>>>
>>>> Our KNOWLEDGE that the statement is true, comes from a finite proof 
>>>> in the meta system. 
>>>
>>> Thus zero knowledge comes from the infinite proof
>>> You spelled "known" incorrectly as "know" yet claimed
>>> that knowledge comes form an infinite proof.
>>>
>>> You can't even pay attention to your own words ???
>>>
>>
>> There is no "infinite proof".
>>
> 
> On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> *know to be true*
> *know to be true*
> *know to be true*
> *know to be true*
> *know to be true*
> by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
> 
> Nothing can ever be known to be true
> by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
> 

Right, you just don't parse it right because you don't understand english.

the "by" refers to the closer referent.

it is KNOW TO BE
TRUE BY an infinite sequence of truth persevng operations.

The infinite sequence establish what makes it True, not what make the 
truth known.

Thi has been explaine dto you several times, but it seems that since 
that doesn't fit what you want, you choose to ignore it and just 
contimue to lie.