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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Analytic Truth-makers
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 07:30:21 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2a0f9a4235d75dee94ccae62b10d3afef5a966a5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7m26d$nrr4$1@dont-email.me>
 <e41a2d324173031e1fe47acc0fd69b94b7aba55e@i2pn2.org>
 <v7msg0$sepk$1@dont-email.me>
 <3fb77583036a3c8b0db4b77610fb4bf4214c9c23@i2pn2.org>
 <v7much$sepk$2@dont-email.me>
 <9577ce80fd6c8a3d5dc37b880ce35a4d10d12a0e@i2pn2.org>
 <v7n3ho$t590$1@dont-email.me>
 <7d9b88425623e1166e358f1bce4c3a2767c36da0@i2pn2.org>
 <v7naae$120r5$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 11:30:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="74402"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v7naae$120r5$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 12749
Lines: 326

On 7/23/24 12:07 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/22/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/22/24 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/22/2024 8:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/22/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/22/2024 7:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/22/24 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/22/2024 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/22/24 12:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I have focused on analytic truth-makers where an expression
>>>>>>>>> of language x is shown to be true in language L by a sequence
>>>>>>>>> of truth preserving operations from the semantic meaning of x
>>>>>>>>> in L to x in L.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In rare cases such as the Goldbach conjecture this may
>>>>>>>>> require an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations
>>>>>>>>> thus making analytic knowledge a subset of analytic truth. 
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are cases where there is no finite or infinite sequence
>>>>>>>>> of truth preserving operations to x or ~x in L because x is
>>>>>>>>> self- contradictory in L. In this case x is not a
>>>>>>>>> truth-bearer in L.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, now you ADMIT that Formal Logical systems can be
>>>>>>>> "incomplete" because there exist analytic truths in them that
>>>>>>>> can not be proven with an actual formal proof (which, by
>>>>>>>> definition, must be finite).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *No stupid I have never been saying anything like that* If g and
>>>>>>> ~g is not provable in PA then g is not a truth-bearer in PA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What makes it different fron Goldbach's conjecture?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just caught in your own lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YOU ADMITTED that statements, like Goldbach's conjecture, might be
>>>>>>  true based on being only established by an infinite series of
>>>>>> truth preserving operations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be too stupid about this too. You are too stupid to grasp
>>>>> the idea of true and unknowable.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case you are not too stupid to know that every expression that
>>>>> requires an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations would
>>>>> not be true in any formal system.
>>>>
>>>> So, is Goldbach'c conjecture possibly true in the formal system of
>>>> Mathematics, even if it can't be proven?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. If it requires an infinite sequence of truth preserving
>>> operations it is not true in any system requiring a finite
>>> sequence.
>>
>>
>> So you LIED when you said Goldbach's conjuecture could bve actually 
>> TRUE even if it could only be established to be true by an infinite 
>> sequence of truth preserving operations.
>>
> 
> That you stupidly screw up the meaning of what I said in your own head
> is your stupidity and not my dishonesty.

So, what does it mean that it is analytic truth, if not that it is a truth?


> 
>> Remember, you said:
>>
>>> In rare cases such as the Goldbach conjecture this may require an 
>>> infinite sequence of truth preserving operations thus making analytic 
>>> knowledge a subset of analytic truth. 
>>
>> Or are statements that are analytic truth not always true statements?
>>
> 
> You never did have a clue of what I meant by that. I still
> mean the same thing. Some analytic truth is unknown.

SO? an statement with unknown truth could still be true.

It seems you mix up the meaning of "True" with the meaning of "Known"

> 
>>>
>>>> If so, why can't Godel's G be?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gödel's G is true in MM.
>>
>> And in PA, as proven,
>>
> 
> That is not the way it works. Truth-makers cannot
> cross system boundaries.

But the knowledge of their existance can.

As I pointed out, the truth-makers for G are that no number satisfies 
the relationship, as shown by trying each number in the relationship and 
seeing that it fails.

That can be done in PA, and demonstartes that G is true in PA. It isn't 
a "Proof", because it needs an infinite number of steps, as there are an 
infinite number of numbers to test, and proofs must be finite.

> 
>> YOu are just showing your ignorance.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In PA, G (not g, that is the variable) is shown to be TRUE, but
>>>>>> only estblished by an infinite series of truth preserving
>>>>>> operations, that we can show exist by a proof in MM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No stupid that is not it. A finite sequence of truth preserving
>>>>> operations in MM proves that G is true in MM. Some people use lower
>>>>> case g.
>>>>
>>>> But the rules of construction of MM prove that statements matching
>>>> certain conditions that are proven in MM are also true in PA.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is merely a false assumption.
>>
>> So, how can the fact that it is shown that no number CAN satisfy the 
>> relationship not make it true that no number does satisfy the 
>> relationship?
>>
> 
> When what-ever xyz and ~xyz cannot be proved in abc then
> xyz is not a truth-bearer in abc.

So, you think that there exists statements that are Analytic Truths in 
the system that are not "Truth-Beares" in the system.

You

> 
>> You seem to have an error in your logic?
>>
> 
> You seem to be a sheep mindlessly accepting the incoherent
> received view.

No, you seem to just have, and have admitted to, an inconsistant view.


You just tried to define that a statement that *IS* an Analytic Truth, 
might not be a "Truth-Bearer".


So, you just blew your system up.

> 
>>>
>>>> And G meets that requirements. (note g is the number, not the 
>>>> statement)
>>>>
>>>> We can show in MM, that no natural number g CAN satisfy that
>>>> relationship, because we know of some additional properties of that
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========