Path: news.eternal-september.org!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: The key undecidable instance that I know about --- Truth-bearers
 ONLY
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 21:58:42 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <866da78a9c320a47a32f669662cff4bbe3f5545b@i2pn2.org>
References: <vqkib1$r5np$1@dont-email.me>
 <95ca0b344ae29f6911a73c655ddbe1c7214f8519@i2pn2.org>
 <vqo4ke$1l6i0$1@dont-email.me>
 <c5b83ef1ae7f77e3ff1fe97dcb557af5380c2ddd@i2pn2.org>
 <vqo7or$1l6i0$3@dont-email.me> <vqo8bf$1lehl$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqoac7$1lvqs$1@dont-email.me> <vqp4h7$1u7ri$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr4cjs$3u6l5$2@dont-email.me>
 <dcea3256423309576ce5cddc21201afbae10ddec@i2pn2.org>
 <vr58ue$m5ov$2@dont-email.me>
 <d17d20f85eba90c7dc80b2ef3f16810947b919c4@i2pn2.org>
 <vr5dh3$q4oj$5@dont-email.me>
 <826c8dc93d6f1449302cf3a2992a0d8d42b317df@i2pn2.org>
 <vr6ne3$1udpn$1@dont-email.me>
 <5b7f8e24bbd9817f74e1f50ee3c3c6def714314b@i2pn2.org>
 <vr7q0i$2o5t3$7@dont-email.me>
 <bcd51c2d82fd26c6ca32651b2a646bbdcc8a00b8@i2pn2.org>
 <vr88rt$3bidi$2@dont-email.me>
 <71ee1fe6f1c2b4e16f9250107531b6a43112cb95@i2pn2.org>
 <vr9gnm$ep20$1@dont-email.me> <vrbuo0$2l47j$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrd731$3lf4t$4@dont-email.me>
 <d484f0f37ede2951806d4fb49c2366664ae827c0@i2pn2.org>
 <vrf9e2$1k987$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 01:58:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="930711"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vrf9e2$1k987$1@dont-email.me>

On 3/19/25 4:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/18/2025 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/18/25 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/18/2025 9:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-03-17 15:56:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/17/2025 6:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/17/25 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> x ∉ True if and only if p
>>>>>>> where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x
>>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>>>>>> That does not say: "This sentence is not true"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The self-reference is only in the English and not
>>>>>>> encoded n the formalism thus cannot be directly
>>>>>>> evaluated in the formalism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This does say: LP := ~True(LP)
>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that sentence you started with is only in the METALANGUAGE, so 
>>>>>> your "Formalism" isn't a statement in the LANGUAGE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> x is a fully defined expression in the language developed per that 
>>>>>> earlier proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, x doesn't NEED to be "formalized" as it IS formalized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The issue is that the "self-reference" isn't anything expressed in 
>>>>>> the LANGUAGE, so isn't part of x itself, but is based on 
>>>>>> properties established in the METALANGUAGE that can be expressed 
>>>>>> in the language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, you are just showing that you don't understand what you are 
>>>>>> talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no counter-example in the set of human general
>>>>> knowledge that can be expressed using language such that
>>>>> True(X) does not work correctly...
>>>>
>>>> That very much depends on what does "correctly" mean about "True(X)".
>>>>
>>>
>>> The common meaning of True on the basis of the meaning
>>> of words such as "cats are animals" for all words
>>> and all meanings.
>>>
>>
>> And thus must include statements with infinite chains of inferences, 
>> even when the results are unknown.
>>
>> Sorry, your problem is you THINK you know what your words mean, but 
>> don't actually understand all the implications, because you are just 
>> too stupid.
> 
> I think that issue is actually your ADD because I have
> qualified my claim for quite a while now limiting it
> to THE SET OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE THAT CAN BE EXPRESSED
> USING LANGUAGE.
> 

And thus you admit that you were NEVER doing the problem you claimed to 
have been doing, and all your work is just a FRAUD.

The set of Human Knowlege is NOT a "Valid Logic System" as Truth is 
different than knowledge.

Thus, you are just proving that you are nothing but a lying fraud.

It seems your concept of truth is just based on lies and unsound logic, 
but you are too stupid to understand that FACT.