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 22:12:30 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <90f397326f36fd58bd153023a5bc2366026f774c@i2pn2.org>
References: <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v6fk9p$mr5k$1@dont-email.me>
 <8bd5f2159853ff17ef81b27a85141bccc324e7d9@i2pn2.org>
 <v6fkrb$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 02:12:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3650795"; 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: <v79rdm$23h44$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7674
Lines: 152

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.

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.

You don't seem to understand that Proofs are limited to the Theory, but 
knowledge can move between properly related Meta-Theoryies and their 
base Theory.