Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: How a True(X) predicate can be defined for the set of analytic
 knowledge
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:56:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ad60872952cbc941149035f6569a7bd4d21766f2@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfvbd$256og$2@dont-email.me> <vsbu9j$1vihj$1@dont-email.me>
 <215f3f8823df394f0cbd307af57a528cb3afc52f@i2pn2.org>
 <vsc6lj$27lbo$1@dont-email.me>
 <ba194532a2343e7068ed57b756a99f48241a94fb@i2pn2.org>
 <vsce69$2fv3s$1@dont-email.me>
 <7e0f966861ff1efd916d8d9c32cc9309fd92fe82@i2pn2.org>
 <vsckdc$2l3cb$1@dont-email.me>
 <cd467496ff18486f746047b3b1affc4927981c0c@i2pn2.org>
 <vsct12$2ub5m$1@dont-email.me>
 <3ab00594a6cdaa3ca8aa32da86b865f3a56d5159@i2pn2.org>
 <vsd1p9$379dn$3@dont-email.me>
 <45167877871179050e15837d637c4c8a22e661fd@i2pn2.org>
 <vsenb0$th5g$7@dont-email.me>
 <4c1393a97bc073e455df99e0a2d3a47bfc71d940@i2pn2.org>
 <vsfe66$1m8qr$4@dont-email.me>
 <7286761fb720294d7a87d883fc82c8f8cf95a460@i2pn2.org>
 <vsfl7f$1s8b0$3@dont-email.me>
 <6edcdf0fa4f6ec503240b27a5801f93c470ed7d6@i2pn2.org>
 <vsh931$3mdkb$1@dont-email.me> <vsivgk$1fjla$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsjmtj$26s7s$2@dont-email.me>
 <a4fce1db1fdba9c5eba3e64dc7dba83caff192cf@i2pn2.org>
 <vskobk$378kj$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 02:27:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2894062"; 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: <vskobk$378kj$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 4/2/25 9:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/2/2025 5:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/2/25 11:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/2/2025 4:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-04-01 17:51:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All we have to do is make a C program that does this
>>>>> with pairs of finite strings then it becomes self-evidently
>>>>> correct needing no proof.
>>>>
>>>> There already are programs that check proofs. But you can make your own
>>>> if you think the logic used by the existing ones is not correct.
>>>>
>>>> If the your logic system is sufficiently weak there may also be a 
>>>> way to
>>>> make a C program that can construct the proof or determine that 
>>>> there is
>>>> none.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When we define a system that cannot possibly be inconsistent
>>> then a proof of consistency not needed.
>>
>> But you can't do that unless you limit the system to only have a 
>> finite number of statements expressible in it, and thus it can't 
>> handle most real problems
>>
>>>
>>> A system entirely comprised of Basic Facts and Semantic logical 
>>> entailment cannot possibly be inconsistent.
>>>
>>
>> Sure it can.
>>
>> The problem is you need to be very careful about what you allow as 
>> your "Basic Facts", and if you allow the system to create the concept 
>> of the Natural Numbers, you can't verify that you don't actually have 
>> a contradition in it.
>>
> 
> It never has been that natural numbers have
> ever actually had any inconsistency themselves
> they are essentially nothing more than an ordered
> set of finite strings of digits.

No, but any logic system that can support them and their properties, 
supports enough logic to prove incompleteness, and the inability to 
prove completeness.

Note, that doesn't mean the system is inconsistant, but it allows for 
other things to create inconsistancies that can't be detected in the system.

Sorry, you keep on proving you don't actually understand what you are 
talking about.

Everything you say is just your (uninformed) opinion. because you don't 
actually know how to actually prove something, because you don't 
understand how logic works.

> 
>> Your problem is you can't process what that means, because your mind 
>> seems to obly understand the so basic logic system that actually can't 
>> be inconsistant, but it also isn't actually useful for anything.
>>
>> All you are doing is showing how ignorant you are of what you are 
>> talking about.
> 
>