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: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 22:29:42 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7731a5d6b20e88b83054ac75eb0e621c7b5bface@i2pn2.org>
References: <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <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> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 02:29:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3650795"; 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: <v79u7p$27j17$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8823
Lines: 178

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 allows the 
>>>> infinite chain to be reduced to a finite proof.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You miss the point. True (or false) and unknowable.
>>>
>> No, YOU miss the point, it could be:
>>
>> False (which in this case must be provable, since false means the 
>> existance of a counter example, that can be show to make the 
>> conjecture false in a finite number of steps.
>>
> 
> OK
> 
>> True, and provable in the Theory.
>>
>> True, and not provable in the Theory, but provable in a Meta-Theory 
>> that transfers knowledge to the Theory.
>>
>> True, and not provably anywhere, and thus unknowable.
>>
> 
> True by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations,
> (thus having a truth-maker) yet unknowable.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========