Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new
 basis --- infallibly correct
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 22:35:50 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6aaa19230db54d6c6483d2ac30298448ced427c7@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me>
	<19d0838dd000cc4f67c8c64ac6005d5405cf2bd6@i2pn2.org>
	<vglv58$3bn2s$3@dont-email.me>
	<cd6cbe7d70fcc282da94aea2107e48ad4b3f44b5@i2pn2.org>
	<vgm79v$3d9gu$1@dont-email.me>
	<4b24331953934da921cb7547b6ee2058ac9e7254@i2pn2.org>
	<vgmb06$3e37h$1@dont-email.me>
	<2a5107f331836f388ad259bf310311a393c00602@i2pn2.org>
	<vgnsho$3qq7s$2@dont-email.me> <vgo157$n00$1@news.muc.de>
	<vgo4ia$3sfle$1@dont-email.me> <vgo7ri$30iv$1@news.muc.de>
	<vgo89i$3t6n8$1@dont-email.me> <vgoand$2464$1@news.muc.de>
	<vgobg7$3tnrn$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 22:35:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1661163"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5929
Lines: 94

Am Sat, 09 Nov 2024 13:00:22 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 11/9/2024 12:47 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/9/2024 11:58 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/9/2024 10:03 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/9/2024 5:01 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/8/24 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That formal systems that only apply truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations to expressions of their formal language that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been stipulated to be true cannot possibly be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable is proven to be over-your-head on the basis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have no actual reasoning as a rebuttal.
>>>>>>>> Gödel showed otherwise.
>>>>>>> That is counter-factual within my precise specification.
>>>>>> That's untrue - you don't have a precise specification.  And even
>>>>>> if you did, Gödel's theorem would still hold.
>>>>>>> When truth is only derived by starting with truth and applying
>>>>>>> truth preserving operations then unprovable in PA becomes untrue
>>>>>>> in PA.
>>>>>> No.  Unprovable will remain.
>>>>> *Like I said you don't pay f-cking attention*
>>>> Stop swearing.  I don't pay much attention to your provably false
>>>> utterances, no.  Life is too short.
>>> That you denigrate what I say without paying attention to what I say
>>> <is> the definition of reckless disregard for the truth that loses
>>> defamation cases.
>> Not at all.  I denigrate your lies, where by lies I mean the emphatic
>> utterances of falsehood due to a lack of expertise in the subject
>> matter.
>> See the beginning of this subthread.
> You are not doing that. I am redefining the foundation of the notion of
> a formal system and calling this a lie can have your house confiscated
> for defamation.

Go on, sue him, liar.

>> You are the one with reckless disregard for the truth.  You haven't
>> even bothered to read the introductory texts which would help you
>> understand what the truth is.
>> I have no fear of you starting a defamation case against me.  For a
>> start, you'd have to learn some German, and for another thing, I'd win
>> on the merits.
>> 
>>>> Hint: Gödel's theorem applies in any sufficiently powerful logical
>>>> system, and the bar for "sufficiently powerful" is not high.
>>> Unless it is stipulated at the foundation of the notion of formal
>>> systems that ~Provable(PA, g) simply means ~True(PA, g).

That doesn’t make ~g provable.

>> If you're going to redefine the word provable to mean something else,
>> you'll need some other word to mean what provable means to everybody
>> else.
> I am correcting the somewhat ill-founded notion of provable to only mean
> applying truth preserving operations to finite string expressions of
> language.

What else do you think it meant?

>>>>> Unprovable(L,x) means Untrue(L,x)
>>>>> Unprovable(L,~x) means Unfalse(L,x)
>>>>> ~True(L,x) ^ ~True(L, ~x) means ~Truth-Bearer(L,x)
>>>> If you're going to change the standard meaning of standard words,
>>>> you'll find communicating with other people somewhat strained and
>>>> difficult.
>>> ZFC did the same thing and that was the ONLY way that Russell's
>>> Paradox was resolved.
>> No, they didn't do the same thing.  They stayed within the bounds of
>> logic.
> ZFC DID NOT STAY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF NAIVE SET THEORY 
> 
>>  And yes, they resolved a paradox.  There is no paradox for your
>> "system" to resolve, even if it were logically coherent.
>> 
>>> When ~Provable(PA,g) means ~True(PA,g) then incompleteness cannot
>>> exist.
>> OK, That's a proof by contradiction that ~provable cannot mean ~true.
> The assumption that ~Provable(PA, g) does not mean ~True(PA, g) cannot
> correctly be the basis for any proof because it is only an assumption.
It’s a very safe assumption, as it keeps both possibilities for the
truth value of g open.

>> We know, by Gödel's Theorem that incompleteness does exist.  So the
>> initial proposition cannot hold, or it is in an inconsistent system.
> Only on the basis of the assumption that ~Provable(PA, g) does not mean
> ~True(PA, g)
> Get rid of that single assumption AND EVERYTHING CHANGES


-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.