Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 09:52:50 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 157 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:52:51 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f3a181c769537c22322d40afc07500b1"; logging-data="3212550"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/1t2MWh67sMrPnn7jiy4Gz" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:qzXiZJ/3dH5Ydal80mf5yfBZjMc= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 7675 On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a >>>>>> similar >>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44) >>>>>> >>>>>> *Parphrased as* >>>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves >>>>>> that the >>>>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or >>>>>> false. >>>>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F. >>>>> >>>>> Nope. >>>>> >>>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a >>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false. >>>>> >>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING. >>>>> >>>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F. >>>>> >>>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually is, >>>>> because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and don't >>>>> even understand that. >>>>> >>>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number that >>>>> has a specific property. Until you understand that, your continued >>>>> talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving your >>>>> absoulute STUPIDITY. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language, >>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the >>>>>> primary >>>>>> bearer of truth or falsity. >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are >>>>> arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop >>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names >>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing >>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you. >>>> >>>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will >>>> hear nothing form me. >>>> >>> >>> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE. >>> >>> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because >>> it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't. >>> >>> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that satisfies >>> a particular property, which will be a truth bearing statement (The >>> number must either exist or it doesn't) >>> >>> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR. >>> >> >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* > > Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but incompletenwss, > which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read what you said above). > > INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that > are true. > I agree with this, and some other sources agree with this. > Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with > undecidability, *Other sources disagree* *These two sources define Undecidability as Incompleteness* Incomplete(F) ≡ ∃x ∈ L ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)) Undecidable Not decidable as a result of being *neither formally provable nor unprovable* https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Undecidable.html Undecidability The non-existence of an algorithm or the *impossibility of proving or disproving a* *statement within a formal system* https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Undecidability#:~:text=The%20non%2Dexistence%20of%20an,statement%20within%20a%20formal%20system. > in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative > Recursive Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly > computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in > finite number of operations). > > So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or doesn't > know the difference in the topics). > > I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't match > your subject, because I understand your general confusion on the topics. > > So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong word, > which just shows your total ignorance about what you are talking about. > > Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put together a > coherent argument? > > You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to > deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about Godel's > argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you have no idea > what he said, but try to put your own false words into his mouth, > > >> >>> That you repeat the error after being corrected, because apparently >>> you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. >>> >>> You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer to >>> it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its >>> interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic >>> system derived from F. >>> >>> The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, so >>> it seems worthless to repeat them every time. >> > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer