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: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:17:15 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3fb77583036a3c8b0db4b77610fb4bf4214c9c23@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7m26d$nrr4$1@dont-email.me>
 <e41a2d324173031e1fe47acc0fd69b94b7aba55e@i2pn2.org>
 <v7msg0$sepk$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 00:17:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="21997"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v7msg0$sepk$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2754
Lines: 42

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.

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.

The truth of G transfers, because it uses nothing of MM, the Proof does 
not, as it depends on factors in MM, so can't be expressed in PA.