Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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 --- Hand in the cookie
 jar --- pants on fire
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 07:25:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ad346fd49fcee03573b6118f8ced66c8d15a649e@i2pn2.org>
References: <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <2d0b6260615af8afac79ee8de57bcd45c2f2056f@i2pn2.org>
 <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> <v77chj$1lkkf$1@dont-email.me>
 <0c8cd942bbb92cd093ed993c6d549a94680b38d9@i2pn2.org>
 <v77fo6$1m07r$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 11:25:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3589390"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v77fo6$1m07r$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 8773
Lines: 178

On 7/17/24 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/16/2024 10:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/16/24 11:07 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.
>>>>  >
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing is known to be true by an infinite sequence of truth
>>> preserving operations.
>>>
>>
>> Depends how you parse the sentence.
>>
>> Godel's G, is known to be True (from the proof in MM), and that truth 
>> is created in PA by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
>>
>> So, Godel's G is true by an infinite sequence of truth preserving 
>> operations in PA, and we know that truth by a finite proof in MM and 
>> that knowledge can be shown to transfer to PA.
>>
>> Thus, Godels G is know to be (true by an infinte sequence of 
>> operations in PA).
>>
> 
> That is incorrect. If for example the truth of the Goldbach conjecture
> was known to be true or false by some finite sequence this does not
> make it known by any infinite sequence.

You seem to be confused about the facts about the Goldbach conecture.

It *IS* known to be either True or False, and THAT fact (that it is true 
or false) has been established by a finite proof.

If it turns out to be true, then we know an infinite sequence that will 
establish it to be true. (but until we know it is true, we don't know if 
that sequence will actually show it, or come up with a case that is the 
counter-proof). There may also be a finite sequence that shows it that 
can become a proof.

True statements don't necessarily have just a single path of steps to 
establish them.

> 
>> And those parenthesis are redundant, as the preposition by naturally 
>> attaches to the closest reasonable clause, which is the truth, and not 
>> the knowledge.
>>
>> Thus, you are just showing a major lack of understanding of how 
>> English works, so your claims of "true by the meaning of words" 
>> becomes suspect, as clearly you don't understand how to build up the 
>> correct meaning of words.
>>
>> Of course, thsi also seems to be INTENTIONAL, as a means to try to 
>> slip DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS in, just showing that you are an 
>> intentionally pathological liar.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========