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: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 23:27:59 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <317d523abb1626eae938f77d68833a2ff825cdb6@i2pn2.org>
References: <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <c81e1794259853dfd7724900ebfab484679615be@i2pn2.org>
 <v6m42j$1tj30$9@dont-email.me> <v6o0an$2bqh7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6oo1j$2fuva$2@dont-email.me> <v72no8$kinb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v73adp$mjis$19@dont-email.me>
 <359671d4a94f2caa82dc3c4884daa2ff73396a8d@i2pn2.org>
 <v74ner$13bn1$2@dont-email.me>
 <d72aa54790eaa53cbe11dfccca12c67249d0d9f6@i2pn2.org>
 <v75st8$19j7l$1@dont-email.me>
 <0c7d3ace11c3a5a50ac7d7beb8b2091114ad82d3@i2pn2.org>
 <v7788t$1h739$1@dont-email.me> <v79m35$22le2$1@dont-email.me>
 <4dc67db2be217a69761ae8dc59494bde8fb5e7eb@i2pn2.org>
 <v79orm$2335g$1@dont-email.me>
 <91f217b71160d6d4c8f43b751a2227d6025157e1@i2pn2.org>
 <v79rdm$23h44$1@dont-email.me>
 <90f397326f36fd58bd153023a5bc2366026f774c@i2pn2.org>
 <v79u7p$27j17$1@dont-email.me>
 <7731a5d6b20e88b83054ac75eb0e621c7b5bface@i2pn2.org>
 <v79vli$27tk0$1@dont-email.me>
 <d0f5ce39cbd35249049472c2735750ee48cc3946@i2pn2.org>
 <v7a1jh$27tk0$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 03:28:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3650738"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v7a1jh$27tk0$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 9827
Lines: 189

On 7/17/24 11:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/17/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/17/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/17/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/17/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/17/2024 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/17/24 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/17/2024 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/17/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2024 7:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/16/2024 8:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/16/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/16/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/16/2024 6:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/24 10:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2024 3:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-11 13:51:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is included in my "not shown above", in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular the word "proofs".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We cannot know that anything is true by an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of truth preserving operations as Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsely claims above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just mixing up your words because you don't 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understd that wrores. amnd just making yourself into a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LIAR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Our KNOWLEDGE that the statement is true, comes from a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite proof in the meta system. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus zero knowledge comes from the infinite proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You spelled "known" incorrectly as "know" yet claimed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that knowledge comes form an infinite proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't even pay attention to your own words ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no "infinite proof".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *know to be true*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *know to be true*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *know to be true*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *know to be true*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *know to be true*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing can ever be known to be true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, you just don't parse it right because you don't 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand english.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "by" refers to the closer referent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is KNOW TO BE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TRUE BY an infinite sequence of truth persevng operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The infinite sequence establish what makes it True, not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what make the truth known.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words when you are caught with your hand in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> cookie jar stealing cookies you deny:
>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) That your hand is in the jar
>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) That there is a jar
>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) That there are any cookies
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *From immediately above* [somethings] are
>>>>>>>>>>> know to be true by an infinite sequence of truth preserving 
>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing is
>>>>>>>>>>> known to be true by an infinite sequence of truth preserving 
>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But it is known to be (true by an infinite sequence of truth 
>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some cases such as the Goldbach conjecture's truth or falsity may
>>>>>>>>> require in infinite sequence of truth preserving operations as
>>>>>>>>> their truthmaker. In these cases the truth or falsity remains
>>>>>>>>> permanently unknown.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless there is a meta-theory that can be discovered that allows 
>>>>>>>> the infinite chain to be reduced to a finite proof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You miss the point. True (or false) and unknowable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, YOU miss the point, it could be:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> False (which in this case must be provable, since false means the 
>>>>>> existance of a counter example, that can be show to make the 
>>>>>> conjecture false in a finite number of steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK
>>>>>
>>>>>> True, and provable in the Theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True, and not provable in the Theory, but provable in a 
>>>>>> Meta-Theory that transfers knowledge to the Theory.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========