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 ---
 Ultimate Foundation of Truth
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:45:20 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0e0c21ec5ccaeec8f341a86ed64c7447c34d162b@i2pn2.org>
References: <vnh0sq$35mcm$1@dont-email.me> <vohsmu$29krm$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp10ic$1e7iv$2@dont-email.me> <vp6qjb$2ousc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpb1le$3jct4$13@dont-email.me>
 <0f7cd503773838ad12f124f23106d53552e277b8@i2pn2.org>
 <vpbknk$3qig2$1@dont-email.me> <vpc560$3sqf7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpd5r4$2q85$2@dont-email.me>
 <7e3e9d35d880cfcad12f505dfb39c5650cdd249e@i2pn2.org>
 <vpfo75$js1o$1@dont-email.me>
 <f3c8332f4b42f8e085d4d4dac017ccc8a0dc5a5f@i2pn2.org>
 <vpgt6o$tiun$1@dont-email.me>
 <3cf165ef9793e844dc9d5db82aecbc47f9545367@i2pn2.org>
 <vpiubu$1fvqe$1@dont-email.me>
 <080bf2b1c322247548c6ec61c9f054359062ccd4@i2pn2.org>
 <vpj8c9$1hivf$3@dont-email.me>
 <6fc61a762b56308f9919993f29ba3e77f7ba84c7@i2pn2.org>
 <vpl2q5$23vks$6@dont-email.me>
 <6320ec8cdc4ab9fc06e5001c0b4069132ce1af58@i2pn2.org>
 <vpn8q6$2jkdj$2@dont-email.me>
 <9c6309a46ca0fdf2ce98f50a09891e143d81ab90@i2pn2.org>
 <vpofp1$2qg88$1@dont-email.me>
 <b45af7804b64b9710e9ea63b1e9801141c8c52be@i2pn2.org>
 <vpopdm$2vaf3$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 12:45:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2030087"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vpopdm$2vaf3$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5064
Lines: 73

On 2/26/25 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/26/2025 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/26/25 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/26/2025 10:03 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:34:47 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 2/26/2025 6:18 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 12:40:04 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 12:15 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 24 Feb 2025 20:02:49 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/25 6:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/25 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/25 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I do.
>>>>>>>>>>>> A Systems is semantically sound if every statement that can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> proven is actually true by the systems semantics,
>>>>>>>>>>> That is very good.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> in other words, the system doesn't allow the proving of a false
>>>>>>>>>>>> statement.
>>>>>>>>>>> That is not too bad yet ignores that some expressions might not
>>>>>>>>>>> have any truth value.
>>>>>>>>>> Which has nothing to do with "soundness".
>>>>>>>>> When any system assumes that every expression is true or false and
>>>>>>>>> is capable of encoding expressions that are neither IT IS STUPIDLY
>>>>>>>>> WRONG.
>>>>>>>> In honour of Gödel this is usually called "incomplete".
>>>>>>> Where "incomplete" has always been an idiom for stupid wrong.
>>>>>> Your understanding of logic is incomplete.
>>>> Which is to say, stupidly wrong.
>>>>
>>>>> The screwed up notion of "incomplete" is anchored in the stupid idea
>>>>> that {true in the system} is not required to be {provable in the
>>>>> system}.
>>>> You are about a century behind on the foundations of mathematics.
>>>>
>>>>> Any expression of language that can only be verified as true on the
>>>>> basis of other expressions of language either has a semantic 
>>>>> connection
>>>>> truthmaker to these other expressions or IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
>>>> I.e. its negation is true.
>>>>
>>>
>>> WTF is the truth value of the negation of nonsense?
>>> The Liar Paradox has ALWAYS simply been nonsense.
>>>
>>
>> But we aren't negating "nonsense", we are negating the actual valid 
>> truth value out of the Truth Primative.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand that the DEFINITION of what a truth 
>> primative is requires that True(Nonsense) be false, not "nonsense".
>>
> 
>   True("lkekngnkerkn") == false
> False("lkekngnkerkn") == false
> 

But ~True("lkekngnkerkn") == true.

so if we can define that lkekngnkerkn is ~True(lkekngnkerkn) then we 
have a problem.

And this is what Tarski proves can be done if the system can represent 
the properties of the Natural Numbers, and has a True predicate.

"False" as a predicate was never mentioned, and is just your strawman 
you use to divert attention from the problem with your logic.

You are just tooo stupid to understand that you are just a pathological 
liar.