Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: How a True(X) predicate can be defined for the set of analytic
 knowledge
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:13:13 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <45e3e4f2bb335d8ba99b2b9d498772a8942a89b7@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfvbd$256og$2@dont-email.me> <vrh432$39r47$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrhami$3fbja$2@dont-email.me> <vrj9lu$1791p$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrjn82$1ilbe$2@dont-email.me> <vrmpc1$bnp3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrmteo$cvat$6@dont-email.me> <vru000$33rof$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrug71$3gia2$6@dont-email.me>
 <0306c3c2d4a6d05a8bb7441c0b23d325aeac3d7b@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvnvv$ke3p$1@dont-email.me> <vs0egm$1cl6q$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs1f7j$296sp$2@dont-email.me> <vs3ad6$2o1a$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs4sjd$1c1ja$8@dont-email.me>
 <a17b6d8379479958b80a757258e7378a5a6107e7@i2pn2.org>
 <vs50t9$1c1ja$16@dont-email.me>
 <f47aac71a3e5fd0573f734e182916e5636afb644@i2pn2.org>
 <vs6vhq$39556$19@dont-email.me>
 <a68d324e7a257930a20d187e323736caaf1e3db8@i2pn2.org>
 <vs8u01$1fccq$1@dont-email.me>
 <633db48376b8b705735bb00cc8b8902e671e6f98@i2pn2.org>
 <vs9mu7$27rl4$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 22:31:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2313829"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vs9mu7$27rl4$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3504
Lines: 36

On 3/29/25 4:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/29/2025 3:21 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 29 Mar 2025 08:53:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 3/29/2025 4:51 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:07:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 3/28/2025 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, so therefore it includes all the "laws of mathematics" and the
>>>>>> "rules of inference" and thus, the system is capable of creating the
>>>>>> rules and properties of the Natural Numbers, so it supports the
>>>>>> proofs of Godel and Tarski, and thus there are statements in that
>>>>>> sytstem that are True but unprovable and no definition of the Truth
>>>>>> Predicate can handle those,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it will showed the formal system can be defined that have all
>>>>> kinds of issues because they were defined incoherently.
>>>>
>>>> How is arithmetic (which is all it takes for Gödel's proof) incoherent?
>>> To the best of my knowledge arithmetic itself cannot be incomplete
>>> unless it can be shown that the sum of two finite strings of digits
>>> cannot be derived.
>> And you think arithmetic should be incomplete or what?
>>
> 
> When Provable(X) means applying truth preserving operations
> to basic facts thus deriving True(X) then True(X) and ~Provable(X)
> cannot possibly exist.
> 

But True isn't derived from Provable, as some statements can be true due 
to an infinite sequence of those truth preserving operations, which then 
aren't a proof, which needs a finite sequence, since we can not "see" 
and infinite list of steps.

Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity and ignorance, and that you 
are nothing but a pathological liar due to your refusal to look at the 
facts.