Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Olcott is proved a
 liar
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 22:08:34 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0b9a648eabf947709865c64275b471a709710e15@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 02:08:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2973854"; 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: <v6oo1j$2fuva$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3052
Lines: 50

On 7/11/24 9:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

Nipe, just more of your lies

> 
> 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.
>  >
> 
> On 7/8/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>  > No, infinite "proofs" determine TRUTH, not knowledge.
> 
> What he mean was that finite meta-analysis can be a
> proxy for an infinite proof.
> 

Right, the fact that in the meta, there is a finite proof of a 
transferable property to PA, gives us the knowledge that G is true in PA 
as well as MM. But still leaves us without a proof IN PA of the statement.

You just don't understand the nature for Formal Logic and meta-systems.