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,comp.theory
Subject: Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- Olcott caught
 in inescapable lie
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 22:58:45 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <395e857641992276a68b2bed4e892e9ed365e30c@i2pn2.org>
References: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.org> <v6csla$1otr$2@dont-email.me>
 <3f12eb90be522441c8b95d17d25767fcaf72ed2d@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cvqs$5vir$2@dont-email.me>
 <efced1648cf7ddc1c257d7c4369add3b391dd005@i2pn2.org>
 <v6d2r0$6cgn$2@dont-email.me>
 <931fe5b1e73d204bf20a268dd025489e3040371d@i2pn2.org>
 <v6e5ho$bbcb$2@dont-email.me>
 <0f3e40caf51b61ebb05c4ec2ae44042bff632017@i2pn2.org>
 <v6el1u$e6tb$1@dont-email.me>
 <3c9ef913b1fbbca50c1a4acd02401906646327ed@i2pn2.org>
 <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <2d0b6260615af8afac79ee8de57bcd45c2f2056f@i2pn2.org>
 <v6fk9p$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>
 <v6i5s1$17hpj$1@dont-email.me>
 <3cdc1b8e116882ff71cf0a27cc4c56017aa3b343@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i7ec$17hpj$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 02:58:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2621132"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v6i7ec$17hpj$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6245
Lines: 126

On 7/8/24 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/8/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/8/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/8/24 8:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/8/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/8/24 8:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/7/2024 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/7/2024 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Formal logic is a subset of this.
>>>>>>>>> Not-a-logic-sentence(PA,g) ≡ (~True(PA,g) ∧ ~True(PA,~g))
>>>>>>>>> There are no truth preserving operations in PA to g or to ~g
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Within my analytical framework this Tarski sentence is merely
>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True. // (1) and (2) combined
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are no truth preserving operations in Tarski's
>>>>>>>> theory to x if and only if There are truth preserving
>>>>>>>> operations in Tarski's theory to x
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There cannot possibly be an infinite proof that proves
>>>>>>> that there is no finite proof of Tarski x in Tarski's theory
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who says there needs to be a infinite proof, since there is no 
>>>>>> such thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I said, one example of such an x is Godel's G.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The infinite proof of the Goldbach conjecture
>>>>>>> (if it is true) continues to find more true
>>>>>>> cases than it had before, thus makes progress
>>>>>>> towards its never ending goal (if its true).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or, it continue to show that there is no counter examples.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Progress" on an infinite path isn't really measurable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The cycles in the following two cases never make any progress
>>>>>>> towards any goal they are merely stuck in infinite loops.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which just means you are on the wrong path. One wrong path doesn't 
>>>>>> me that there is no path.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Prolog unify_with_occurs_check test means that
>>>>>>> LP is stuck in an infinite loop that makes no progress
>>>>>>> towards resolution. I invented Minimal Type Theory to
>>>>>>> see this, then I noticed that Prolog does the same thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is irrelevent, since Prolog can't handle the basics of the 
>>>>>> field that Traski assumes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LP := ~(L ⊢ LP)
>>>>>>> 00 ~ 01
>>>>>>> 01 ⊢ 01, 00
>>>>>>> 02 L
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The cycle in the direct graph of LP is
>>>>>>> an infinite loop that make no progress
>>>>>>> towards the goal of evaluating LP as
>>>>>>> true or false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Failure to prove by example doesn't show something isn't true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just proving you are stupid and don't know what you are 
>>>>>> talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Liar?
>>>
>>
>> What lie?
>>
>> I guess you have confused yourself and lost your train of thought 
>> (which I think is just N gauge)
> 
> Maybe the actual problem is that your ADD is much worse than I thought.
> 
> You know that infinite proofs never determine knowledge AND claim
> that infinite proofs determine knowledge.
> 
> 


You just can't keep your facts straight.

When did I ever say that we got knowledge from an infinite proof?

(Show statement or you are just admitting to making another lie)

That is just another of your "Diagonalization" claims that shows how 
much of a liar you are.

Infinte series of truth perserving operations establish truth, but not 
knowledge. It makes the thing true but we can't know it unless we can 
find a short-cut in some meta (Like we do with Godel's G).