Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: How a True(X) predicate can be defined for the set of analytic
 knowledge
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:51:52 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a68d324e7a257930a20d187e323736caaf1e3db8@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfvbd$256og$2@dont-email.me> <vrh432$39r47$1@dont-email.me>
	<vrhami$3fbja$2@dont-email.me> <vrj9lu$1791p$1@dont-email.me>
	<vrjn82$1ilbe$2@dont-email.me> <vrmpc1$bnp3$1@dont-email.me>
	<vrmteo$cvat$6@dont-email.me> <vru000$33rof$1@dont-email.me>
	<vrug71$3gia2$6@dont-email.me>
	<0306c3c2d4a6d05a8bb7441c0b23d325aeac3d7b@i2pn2.org>
	<vrvnvv$ke3p$1@dont-email.me> <vs0egm$1cl6q$1@dont-email.me>
	<vs1f7j$296sp$2@dont-email.me> <vs3ad6$2o1a$1@dont-email.me>
	<vs4sjd$1c1ja$8@dont-email.me>
	<a17b6d8379479958b80a757258e7378a5a6107e7@i2pn2.org>
	<vs50t9$1c1ja$16@dont-email.me>
	<f47aac71a3e5fd0573f734e182916e5636afb644@i2pn2.org>
	<vs6vhq$39556$19@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:51:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2228780"; 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: 2375
Lines: 17

Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:07:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/28/2025 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

>> Ok, so therefore it includes all the "laws of mathematics" and the
>> "rules of inference" and thus, the system is capable of creating the
>> rules and properties of the Natural Numbers, so it supports the proofs
>> of Godel and Tarski, and thus there are statements in that sytstem that
>> are True but unprovable and no definition of the Truth Predicate can
>> handle those,
> 
> Yes it will showed the formal system can be defined that have all kinds
> of issues because they were defined incoherently.

How is arithmetic (which is all it takes for Gödel's proof) incoherent?

-- 
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.