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: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Olcott's Hand in the
 cookie jar
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 22:59:32 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <449f12f0aea474079048da5b4721e83f79d14b2a@i2pn2.org>
References: <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>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 02:59:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3545859"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v7788t$1h739$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6173
Lines: 128

On 7/16/24 9:54 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
> 

Nope, You are caught not understanding how English works, which means 
your idea of using the meaning of words has a lot of trouble.

And that you logic is based on lying.

I will point out that you have effectively admitted that your last 
couple years of work are all based on LIES, as you are now making it 
clear that you input that you say represents the program DDD actually 
doesn't as you explictily say it doesn't contain the code for HHH that 
it calls, and thus the input does NOT represent an actual program,  so 
you have lied that the input is  an equivalent of the input to the 
Turing Machine H, which *IS* the description of a FULL Program.

Thus, you have wasted years of you life on a lie, and many hours of 
everyone else's time.



> 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.
>  >
> 
> 
> 
>