Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ? Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 23:27:59 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <317d523abb1626eae938f77d68833a2ff825cdb6@i2pn2.org> References: <359671d4a94f2caa82dc3c4884daa2ff73396a8d@i2pn2.org> <0c7d3ace11c3a5a50ac7d7beb8b2091114ad82d3@i2pn2.org> <4dc67db2be217a69761ae8dc59494bde8fb5e7eb@i2pn2.org> <91f217b71160d6d4c8f43b751a2227d6025157e1@i2pn2.org> <90f397326f36fd58bd153023a5bc2366026f774c@i2pn2.org> <7731a5d6b20e88b83054ac75eb0e621c7b5bface@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 03:28:00 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3650738"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 9827 Lines: 189 On 7/17/24 11:19 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/17/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 7/17/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/17/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 7/17/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/17/2024 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 7/17/24 9:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/17/2024 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/17/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2024 7:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/16/2024 8:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/16/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In other words when you are caught with your hand in the >>>>>>>>>>>> cookie jar stealing cookies you deny: >>>>>>>>>>>> (a) That your hand is in the jar >>>>>>>>>>>> (b) That there is a jar >>>>>>>>>>>> (c) That there are any cookies >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>  > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *From immediately above* [somethings] are >>>>>>>>>>> know to be true by an infinite sequence of truth preserving >>>>>>>>>>> operations. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nothing is >>>>>>>>>>> known to be true by an infinite sequence of truth preserving >>>>>>>>>>> operations. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But it is known to be (true by an infinite sequence of truth >>>>>>>>>> preserving operations) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some cases such as the Goldbach conjecture's truth or falsity may >>>>>>>>> require in infinite sequence of truth preserving operations as >>>>>>>>> their truthmaker. In these cases the truth or falsity remains >>>>>>>>> permanently unknown. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Unless there is a meta-theory that can be discovered that allows >>>>>>>> the infinite chain to be reduced to a finite proof. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You miss the point. True (or false) and unknowable. >>>>>>> >>>>>> No, YOU miss the point, it could be: >>>>>> >>>>>> False (which in this case must be provable, since false means the >>>>>> existance of a counter example, that can be show to make the >>>>>> conjecture false in a finite number of steps. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OK >>>>> >>>>>> True, and provable in the Theory. >>>>>> >>>>>> True, and not provable in the Theory, but provable in a >>>>>> Meta-Theory that transfers knowledge to the Theory. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========