Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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 20:00:19 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <118757d760bdecf247749f20c8c9b15518be3d33@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>
 <fde9d3850bbfcfbea9597d90419a0e0a1d8c5552@i2pn2.org>
 <vpop70$2vaf3$1@dont-email.me>
 <bd7d954830f64ed5b718b23323fce66b33b4b89a@i2pn2.org>
 <vppt4h$34vin$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 01:00:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2112681"; 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: <vppt4h$34vin$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6292
Lines: 107

On 2/27/25 9:33 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/27/2025 6:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/26/25 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/26/2025 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/25 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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}.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> When math creates the idiomatic meaning of "provable" that
>>>>> diverges from its common meaning math diverges from what
>>>>> actual true really is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, what is "screwed up" is the idea that something can't be true 
>>>> until we know it, 
>>>
>>> I didn't actually say anything like that.
>>> Every truth must have a truth-maker.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Right, but having a truth maker doesn't mean provable, except in your 
>> broken logic,
>>
> 
> Yes logic is broken when it does not require a truth-maker
> for every truth. It is also broken when its idiomatic meaning
> of the term "provable" diverges from the meaning of the term
> truth-maker. That every truth must have a truth-maker is outside
> the scope of what you understand.

But it does, it just you don't seem to understand what a truth makee is?

Where was a statement without a truth-maker used?

Remember, Tarski reference his previous proof that shows that the 
statement you think of as the liars paradox, actually evolved out of a 
proof in the system, so it does have truth-makers.

Godels actual G, is derived with truth-makers, and is made true in F 
because when you do the infinite work of testing EVERY Natural Number, 
none will satisfy the relationship, and thus has an infinite-chain as 
its truth-maker.

Since proofs must be finite, it isn't a proof, but is a truth-maker.

Your problem is you just don't understand that infinite chains exist 
that make things true but not proven, because you have a FALSE premise 
in your logic that you think that all truths must be provable, which 
just doesn't hold in systems complicated enough.

But then, you can't handle logic that complacted, as you can't put it 
into Prolog to get your answer, and you mistakenly think that means 
those system are logical.

No, all it shows is that you are too stupid to understand how real logic 
works.

> 
>> But you are just too stupid to understand that,
> 
> It never has been any stupidity on my part. It has always been
> ignorance on the part of others of the philosophical foundations
> of truth that requires truth-makers.
> 
>> as you only seem to be able to understand grade school logic system, 
>> and not real ones that can do real work.
> 
>