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: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 22:30:39 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6a43171a4fb86a3e2148892e82778dbbf84e888b@i2pn2.org>
References: <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v74ner$13bn1$2@dont-email.me>
 <d72aa54790eaa53cbe11dfccca12c67249d0d9f6@i2pn2.org>
 <v75st8$19j7l$1@dont-email.me>
 <0c7d3ace11c3a5a50ac7d7beb8b2091114ad82d3@i2pn2.org>
 <v7788t$1h739$1@dont-email.me> <v79m35$22le2$1@dont-email.me>
 <4dc67db2be217a69761ae8dc59494bde8fb5e7eb@i2pn2.org>
 <v79orm$2335g$1@dont-email.me>
 <91f217b71160d6d4c8f43b751a2227d6025157e1@i2pn2.org>
 <v79rdm$23h44$1@dont-email.me>
 <90f397326f36fd58bd153023a5bc2366026f774c@i2pn2.org>
 <v79u7p$27j17$1@dont-email.me>
 <7731a5d6b20e88b83054ac75eb0e621c7b5bface@i2pn2.org>
 <v79vli$27tk0$1@dont-email.me>
 <d0f5ce39cbd35249049472c2735750ee48cc3946@i2pn2.org>
 <v7a1jh$27tk0$2@dont-email.me>
 <317d523abb1626eae938f77d68833a2ff825cdb6@i2pn2.org>
 <v7a2je$28b88$1@dont-email.me>
 <faac34dead2e28260ea72a819f37dbd4d8d64e58@i2pn2.org>
 <v7a495$28f34$1@dont-email.me>
 <aef056ccb53d299f5b9cf25b3ebc11e4a71e4159@i2pn2.org>
 <v7b3hn$2e2aq$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 02:30:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3700917"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v7b3hn$2e2aq$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 12854
Lines: 250

On 7/18/24 8:58 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/18/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/18/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/17/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/17/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/17/2024 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/17/24 11:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/17/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/17/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2024 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/24 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2024 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2024 7:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/16/2024 8:54 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From immediately above* [somethings] are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know to be true by an infinite sequence of truth 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known to be true by an infinite sequence of truth 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it is known to be (true by an infinite sequence of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth preserving operations)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some cases such as the Goldbach conjecture's truth or 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsity may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require in infinite sequence of truth preserving 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their truthmaker. In these cases the truth or falsity 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permanently unknown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless there is a meta-theory that can be discovered that 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========