Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<0a91bd587521969c17e88e93eb8b2076b7a3b0f7@i2pn2.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2025 20:06:34 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0a91bd587521969c17e88e93eb8b2076b7a3b0f7@i2pn2.org>
References: <vnh0sq$35mcm$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 01:06:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1945769"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vnh0sq$35mcm$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2132
Lines: 25

On 1/30/25 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> Within the entire body of analytical truth any expression of language 
> that has no sequence of formalized semantic deductive inference steps 
> from the formalized semantic foundational truths of this system are 
> simply untrue in this system. (Isomorphic to provable from axioms).
> 
> In other words when any expression of language of any system (formal or 
> informal) has no semantic connection to its semantic meaning in this 
> system then this expression is simply nonsense in this system. "This 
> sentence is untrue" is Boolean nonsense.
> 
> Copyright PL Olcott 2016 through 2025.
> 

Except that isn't what incompleteness says.

Incompleteness is about the existance of statements which are TRUE, 
because there is a sequence of formal semantic deduction that reaches 
the statement, abet an infinite one, but there is no finite sequnce of 
formal semantic deduction to form a proof.

You are just so ignorant about the distinction between knowledge and 
truth, that you can't make that distinction.

And this stupidity blinds you to the logic that you are trying to 
manipulate, so you just prove that stupidity.