Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!s1-1.netnews.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new
 basis --- infallibly correct
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 10:54:06 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a68d9c5661e25c487738e91d3f88dfecd2ef3a7b@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vg4uem$3o3ca$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg7f7l$a1jf$1@dont-email.me> <vg8ulh$9stc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgakbd$vlda$1@dont-email.me> <vgbm5r$sgg9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgg6fh$2s61$1@news.muc.de> <vgg7tk$26klj$1@dont-email.me>
 <vggjtb$1f3u$1@news.muc.de> <vggund$2am72$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgkudf$1lrm$1@news.muc.de> <vgl78d$37h38$2@dont-email.me>
 <vgl9cm$6e3$1@news.muc.de> <vgl9uh$37h38$9@dont-email.me>
 <vglcnh$agb$1@news.muc.de> <vgldr3$38uph$1@dont-email.me>
 <vglfui$agb$2@news.muc.de> <vglhij$39mg2$1@dont-email.me>
 <8c2cbbe343934d211ad8c820c963702e70351a27@i2pn2.org>
 <vglk31$3a6hn$1@dont-email.me>
 <19d0838dd000cc4f67c8c64ac6005d5405cf2bd6@i2pn2.org>
 <vglv58$3bn2s$3@dont-email.me>
 <cd6cbe7d70fcc282da94aea2107e48ad4b3f44b5@i2pn2.org>
 <vgm79v$3d9gu$1@dont-email.me>
 <4b24331953934da921cb7547b6ee2058ac9e7254@i2pn2.org>
 <vgmb06$3e37h$1@dont-email.me>
 <2a5107f331836f388ad259bf310311a393c00602@i2pn2.org>
 <vgnsho$3qq7s$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:54:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1690789"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vgnsho$3qq7s$2@dont-email.me>
X-Received-Bytes: 6835
Bytes: 7005
Lines: 113

On 11/9/24 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/9/2024 5:01 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 08 Nov 2024 18:39:34 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 11/8/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/8/24 6:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/8/2024 3:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/8/24 4:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/8/2024 12:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/8/24 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/8/2024 12:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/8/24 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That formal systems that only apply truth preserving operations
>>>>>>>>>>> to expressions of their formal language that have been
>>>>>>>>>>> stipulated to be true cannot possibly be undecidable is proven
>>>>>>>>>>> to be over-your-head on the basis that you have no actual
>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning as a rebuttal.
>> Gödel showed otherwise.
> 
> That is counter-factual within my precise specification.

Then your precise specifications are illogical

> 
> When truth is only derived by starting with
> truth and applying truth preserving operations
> then unprovable in PA becomes untrue in PA.

Which is what he did.

So, you are just admitting yourself to be a stupid liar.

> 
> Everyone is so sure that whatever I say must be wrong
> that they don't pay any f-cking attention to what I say.
> The above paragraph <is> infallibly correct.

No, we see what you are saying, and point out your false assumptins, but 
you are just too fucking stupid to understand it, because you only 
beleive what you have brainwashed yourself to believe.

You have condemended yourself to hell for lying, because you have 
defined your world to be a lie.

> 
>>>>>>>>>> No, all you have done is shown that you don't undertstand what
>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about.
>>>>>>>>>> Godel PROVED that the FORMAL SYSTEM that his proof started in, is
>>>>>>>>>> unable to PROVE that the statement G, being "that no Natural
>>>>>>>>>> Number g, that satifies a particularly designed Primitive
>>>>>>>>>> Recursive Relationship" is true, but also shows (using the Meta-
>>>>>>>>>> Mathematics that derived the PRR for the original Formal System)
>>>>>>>>>> that no such number can exist.
>>>>>>>>> The equivocation of switching formal systems from PA to meta-math.
>> There’s no such thing happening. They are very clearly separated.
>>>>>>>> No, it just shows you don't understand how meta-systems work.
>>>>>>> IT SHOWS THAT I KNOW IT IS STUPID TO CONSTRUE TRUE IN META-MATH AS
>>>>>>> TRUE IN PA.
>> MM doesn’t even contain the same sentences as PA.
>>>>>> But, as I pointed out, the way Meta-Math is derived from PA,
>>>>> Meta-math <IS NOT> PA.
>>>>> True in meta-math <IS NOT> True in PA.
>> Yes it is. If MM proves that a sentence is true in PA, that sentence
>> is true in PA.
> 
> Within my model: Only PA can prove what is true in PA.

Then WE can't prove anything is true in PA, as we are not PA.

MM proves that something is true in PA by showing that there exists a 
sequnce (possibly infinite) of logic preserving logical operation 
definied in PA using the axioms of PA.

If MM can't do that, then neither can we, and we can know nothing of PA.

You just don't understand what you are talking about.

> 
>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
>>>>> is only true because the inner sentence is bullshit gibberish.
>> It’s a perfectly wellformed sentence.
>>>> But MM has exactly the same axioms and rules as PA, so anything
>>>> established by that set of axioms and rules in MM is established in PA
>>>> too.
>>>> There are additional axioms in MM, but the rules are built specifically
>>> One single level of indirect reference CHANGES EVERYTHING.
>>> PA speaks PA. Meta-math speaks ABOUT PA.
>>> The liar paradox is nonsense gibberish except when applied to itself,
>>> then it becomes true.
>> What is "the liar paradox applied to itself"?
>>
> 
> Can yo please add a newline so that
> you comments are no buried in my comments?
> 
> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
> is true because the inner sentence is nonsense gibberish.
> 

So? You keep on saying that, but you don't show its relevence.

Yes, Godel makes an off-hand high level reference to the use of the 
liar's paradox, but he doesn't actually us it the way you think. Your 
confusion seems to come because you are too stupid to understand what he 
is doing because your mind is just about 10 sizes too small to 
understand it.

If you would try to find where in the actual proof there is an error you 
might be able to make progress, but commenting about the high level 
notes doesn't show any error in the actual proof.

But, if all you can understand is those high level notes, then you need 
to admit that you don't have enough understanding to actual show an 
error in it, and your claims become nothing but deliberate lies.