Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception ---
 Tarski
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 10:31:25 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <99421c3da2d19cd567fb5351a71b52a5ef878718@i2pn2.org>
References: <vnh0sq$35mcm$1@dont-email.me> <vni4ta$3ek8m$1@dont-email.me>
 <vnikre$3hb19$1@dont-email.me> <vnkov9$1971$1@dont-email.me>
 <vnl9vj$4f8i$1@dont-email.me> <vnndqs$kef3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vnpd96$vl84$1@dont-email.me> <vnqm3p$1apip$1@dont-email.me>
 <vnqsbh$1c5sq$1@dont-email.me> <vnsm90$1pr86$1@dont-email.me>
 <vnte6s$1tra8$1@dont-email.me> <vnv4tf$2a43e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo0249$2eqdl$1@dont-email.me> <vo1qae$2s4cr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo2i10$302f0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:31:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2971332"; 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: <vo2i10$302f0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6219
Lines: 123

On 2/6/25 9:46 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/6/2025 2:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-02-05 16:03:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 2/5/2025 1:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-02-04 16:11:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/4/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-02-03 16:54:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/3/2025 9:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-03 03:30:46 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2025 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-01 14:09:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2025 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-31 13:57:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2025 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-30 23:10:18 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the entire body of analytical truth any expression 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of language that has no sequence of formalized semantic 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deductive inference steps from the formalized semantic 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundational truths of this system are simply untrue in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this system. (Isomorphic to provable from axioms).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there is a misconception then you have misconceived 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. It is well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known that it is possible to construct a formal theory 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where some formulas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are neither provble nor disprovable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is well known.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And well undeerstood. The claim on the subject line is false.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a fact or piece of information that shows that something
>>>>>>>>>>> exists or is true:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/proof
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We require that terms of art are used with their term-of-art 
>>>>>>>>>> meaning and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The fundamental base meaning of Truth[0] itself remains the same
>>>>>>>>> no matter what idiomatic meanings say.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant as the subject line does not mention truth.
>>>>>>>> Therefore, no need to revise my initial comment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The notion of truth is entailed by the subject line:
>>>>>>> misconception means ~True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The title line means that something is misunderstood but that 
>>>>>> something
>>>>>> is not the meaning of "true".
>>>>>
>>>>> It is untrue because it is misunderstood.
>>>>
>>>> Mathematical incompleteness is not a claim so it cannot be untrue.
>>>
>>> That mathematical incompleteness coherently exists <is> claim.
>>
>> Yes, but you didn't claim that.
>>
>>> The closest that it can possibly be interpreted as true would
>>> be that because key elements of proof[0] have been specified
>>> as not existing in proof[math] math is intentionally made less
>>> than complete.
>>
>> Math is not intentionally incomplete. 
> 
> You paraphrased what I said incorrectly.
> Proof[math] was defined to have less capability than Proof[0].

But your INVENTED Proof[0] isn't actually what a proof is.

> 
>> Many theories are incomplete,
>> intertionally or otherwise, but they don't restrict the rest of math.
>> But there are areas of matheimatics that are not yet studied.
>>
>>> When-so-ever any expression of formal or natural language X lacks
>>> a connection to its truthmaker X remains untrue.
>>
>> An expresion can be true in one interpretation and false in another.
>>
> 
> I am integrating the semantics into the evaluation as its full context.
> When we do this and require an expression of formal or natural language
> to have a semantic connection to its truthmaker then true[0] cannot
> exist apart from provable[0].'

And don't undetstand that you can't SHOW an infinite sequence to make 
something your Proof[0].

You just have a fundamental (or is it a funny mental) misunderstanding 
of what you are trying to talk about, because you just can't understand 
the words.

> 
> True[math] can only exist apart from Provable[math] within
> the narrow minded, idiomatic use of these terms. This is
> NOT the way that True[0] and Provable[0] actually work.

But, until you can actually DEFINE what you mean in a coherent method, 
everything you claim is juat a lie.

> 
> My point is much more clear when we see that Tarski attempts
> to show that True[0] is undefinable.
> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
> 

But Tarski isn't talking about True[0], as that is something you have 
made up.

This shows your claim is just a LIE, as should everything you say be 
presumed until you actually prove it (per the REAL definition of prove).

Sorry, you are just proving that you are nothing but a pathological 
lying idiot.