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 --- Honest confusion ?
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 07:08:41 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <aef056ccb53d299f5b9cf25b3ebc11e4a71e4159@i2pn2.org>
References: <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <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> <v79m35$22le2$1@dont-email.me>
 <4dc67db2be217a69761ae8dc59494bde8fb5e7eb@i2pn2.org>
 <v79orm$2335g$1@dont-email.me>
 <91f217b71160d6d4c8f43b751a2227d6025157e1@i2pn2.org>
 <v79rdm$23h44$1@dont-email.me>
 <90f397326f36fd58bd153023a5bc2366026f774c@i2pn2.org>
 <v79u7p$27j17$1@dont-email.me>
 <7731a5d6b20e88b83054ac75eb0e621c7b5bface@i2pn2.org>
 <v79vli$27tk0$1@dont-email.me>
 <d0f5ce39cbd35249049472c2735750ee48cc3946@i2pn2.org>
 <v7a1jh$27tk0$2@dont-email.me>
 <317d523abb1626eae938f77d68833a2ff825cdb6@i2pn2.org>
 <v7a2je$28b88$1@dont-email.me>
 <faac34dead2e28260ea72a819f37dbd4d8d64e58@i2pn2.org>
 <v7a495$28f34$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 11:08:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3700917"; 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: <v7a495$28f34$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 12291
Lines: 239

On 7/18/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/17/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/17/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/17/2024 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/17/24 11:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/17/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/17/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/17/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/17/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2024 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/24 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2024 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/2024 7:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/17/24 8:02 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From immediately above* [somethings] 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it is known to be (true by an infinite sequence of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth preserving operations)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some cases such as the Goldbach conjecture's truth or 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsity may
>>>>>>>>>>>>> require in infinite sequence of truth preserving operations as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their truthmaker. In these cases the truth or falsity remains
>>>>>>>>>>>>> permanently unknown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless there is a meta-theory that can be discovered that 
>>>>>>>>>>>> allows the infinite chain to be reduced to a finite proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You miss the point. True (or false) and unknowable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU miss the point, it could be:
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========