Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology
 providing situational context.
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 22:53:21 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <468e70a19f02c02766665fd0c1c1482eb6daac36@i2pn2.org>
References: <vr1shq$1qopn$1@dont-email.me> <vr50bg$ed3o$5@dont-email.me>
 <vr5abg$m5ov$6@dont-email.me>
 <8ea8c8f1c661d0f2eef855af9b4c171d4f574826@i2pn2.org>
 <vr6po4$1udpn$7@dont-email.me>
 <4965dcbb84fc29c9ba9d3cea39b59a8608bfeb66@i2pn2.org>
 <vr7v51$2u81k$3@dont-email.me>
 <7db5f56a38a6b6eda2b63acc2568f5dedcc55efd@i2pn2.org>
 <vr9fp6$bv13$5@dont-email.me> <vrbrkd$2ii4j$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrbss5$2j07c$1@dont-email.me>
 <2dd0fa97e2387ba4bca36b40ca16925933b35d9a@i2pn2.org>
 <vrfe7q$1oabl$1@dont-email.me>
 <0e92642bf4519e50ba48d51b52d17749c6e19664@i2pn2.org>
 <vri3va$3egq$1@dont-email.me>
 <9495b0ea31b3c2559cf9515bfabe071d48cc9d39@i2pn2.org>
 <vrinjq$kefg$2@dont-email.me> <vrj702$14v65$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrjboo$17u8e$2@dont-email.me>
 <674e15b27aee55659e2925766cb6bb2b94fbb36d@i2pn2.org>
 <vrkh30$29m93$1@dont-email.me> <vrkq98$2h2aq$2@dont-email.me>
 <vrm927$3tmbh$1@dont-email.me> <vrmjas$5bpl$2@dont-email.me>
 <a3f359deabfaa7ae55c6c6f29fd01f14ab3d0119@i2pn2.org>
 <vrn6r7$md49$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 02:53:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1355129"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vrn6r7$md49$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5523
Lines: 96

On 3/22/25 4:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/22/2025 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/22/25 11:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2025 7:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-03-21 22:47:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/21/2025 3:10 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/03/2025 11:48, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/21/25 5:33 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But what if they were /both/ right? It was an obvious worry, and 
>>>>>>>> so arose the great question: is mathematics consistent?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And Gödel proved not only that it isn't, but that it can't be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fortunately, to date inconsistency has tended to surface only in 
>>>>>>>> corner cases like the Halting Problem, but Gödel's Hobgoblin 
>>>>>>>> hovers over mathematics to this day.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Godel didn't prove that Mathematics wasn't consistent. He proved 
>>>>>>> that it couldn't be proved to BE consistant within itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I rather overstated the case. Sorry about that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or we could simply define the rules for constructing a
>>>>> formal system such that inconsistency cannot exist.
>>>>
>>>> That is possible. An example is Horn clauses, which is the theory 
>>>> behind
>>>> Prolog. If the logic has no negation operator there is no 
>>>> posiibility to
>>>> express an inconsistency. But even then the question whether there 
>>>> is an
>>>> unprovable sentence is problematic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The body of human general knowledge that can be expressed
>>> in language cannot possibly have any unprovable expressions
>>> when truth preserving operations are the only category of
>>> inference steps allowed.
>>
>> So, your logic doesn't allow us to express the Goldbach conjecture in it?
>>
>> We can't express the logic of Turing Machines?
>>
> 
> The body of general knowledge that can be expressed in
> language (is the actual body of general knowledge that
> can be expressed in language) thus includes every tiny
> detail about the Goldbach conjecture.

Right, but knowing all the details doesn't get us the answer, we KNOW 
all the details that define the problem, we just can't test every number 
to see if it holds.

> 
> I never defined "general" knowledge thus your critique
> is apt. I had to make the set of basic facts finite
> that is why I limited them to general knowledge.
> 

And either those define the basis of the Natural Numbers, at which point 
the various theorem will hold, or you don't at which point your

> What it does not have is a set of truth preserving
> operations from basic facts to a truth value of TRUE.
> Is the Goldbach Conjecture known to be True? No.

But the question is NOT "is it KNOWN to be True?" but "is it True?"

Thus, you demonstrate that your whole argument is based on the FRAUD of 
a STRAWMAN, and that you are just too stupid to understand the 
difference between TRUTH and KNOWLEDGE.

> 
>> It seems you are removing large swaths of "Human Knowledge" from your 
>> system.
>>
>>>
>>> This system is somewhat similar to the restrictions that
>>> ZFC set theory places on the creation of sets.
>>>
>>
>> Nope. You might think so, but only because you don't understand what 
>> you are saying.
>>
>> The only way to prevent the formation of unprovable expressions is to 
>> make your system too weak to be able to create the basic properties of 
>> the Natural Number system.
>>
> 
>