Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!s1-2.netnews.com!peer02.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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Analytic Truth-makers
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 23:27:02 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b969998e09a55fb3ab05b2a19fd28a36ca56ecc7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7m26d$nrr4$1@dont-email.me>
 <e41a2d324173031e1fe47acc0fd69b94b7aba55e@i2pn2.org>
 <v7msg0$sepk$1@dont-email.me>
 <3fb77583036a3c8b0db4b77610fb4bf4214c9c23@i2pn2.org>
 <MPG.4109e1eeb98e7f829896fe@reader.eternal-september.org>
 <v7olj0$19f9b$1@dont-email.me>
 <5406ed035cafb6c47d3b89e92dac58f0b9c67fe8@i2pn2.org>
 <v7pprm$1iqdm$1@dont-email.me>
 <c6614a4ab791677959ecc8cfc21bac9ae1811678@i2pn2.org>
 <v7prni$1j3e7$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 03:27:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="142535"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v7prni$1j3e7$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Bytes: 5628
Bytes: 5798
Lines: 113

On 7/23/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/23/2024 10:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/23/24 10:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/23/2024 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/23/24 12:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/23/2024 9:51 AM, Wasell wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:17:15 -0400, in article
>>>>>> <3fb77583036a3c8b0db4b77610fb4bf4214c9c23@i2pn2.org>, Richard 
>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/22/24 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *No stupid I have never been saying anything like that* If g and
>>>>>>>> ~g is not provable in PA then g is not a truth-bearer in PA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What makes it different fron Goldbach's conjecture?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think a better example might be Goodstein's theorem [1].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * It is expressible in the same language as PA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * It is neither provable, nor disprovable, in PA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * We know that it is true in the standard model of arithmetic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * We know that it is false in some (necessarily non-standard) models
>>>>>>    of arithmetic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * It was discovered and proved long before it was shown to be
>>>>>>    undecidable in PA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only drawback is that the theorem is somewhat more complicated
>>>>>> than Goldbach's conjecture -- not a lot, but a bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodstein%27s_theorem>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am establishing a new meaning for
>>>>> {true on the basis of meaning expressed in language}
>>>>> Formerly known as {analytic truth}.
>>>>> This makes True(L,x) computable and definable.
>>>>
>>>> You may say that, but you then refuse to do the work to actually do 
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that if you try to redefine the foundation, you need 
>>>> to build the whole building all over again, but you just don't 
>>>> understand what you need to do that.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> L is the language of a formal mathematical system.
>>>>> x is an expression of that language.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we understand that True(L,x) means that there is a finite
>>>>> sequence of truth preserving operations in L from the semantic
>>>>> meaning of x to x in L, then mathematical incompleteness is abolished.
>>>>
>>>> Except you just defined that this isn't true, as you admit that the 
>>>> Goldbach conjecgture COULD be an analytic truth even if it doesn't 
>>>> have a finte sequence of truth perserving operations, 
>>>
>>> I redefined analytic truth to account for that. Things
>>> like the Goldbach conjecture are in the different class
>>> of currently unknowable.
>>
>> In other words, NOTHING you are talking about apply to the logic that 
>> anyone else is using.
>>
>> Note, Godel's G can't be put into that category, as it is KNOWN to be 
>> true in PA, because of a proof in MM 
> 
> You ONLY construe it to be true in PA because that is
> the answer that you memorized.

No, it is True in PA, because it is LITERALLY True by the words it uses.

> 
> When you understand that true requires a sequence of
> truth preserving operations and they do not exist in
> PA then it is not true in PA.

But they DO exist in PA, I guess you just don't understand how math works.

The sequence of steps is:

Check the number 0 to see if it satisfies the PRR. Answer = No.
Check the number 1 to see if it satisfies the PRR. Answer = No.
Check the number 2 to see if it satisfies the PRR. Answer = No.

keep repeating counting up through all the Natural Numbers.
 From the trick in MM, we can see that the math in PA will say no to all 
of them.

Thus, after an infinite number of steps of truth preserving operations, 
we reach the conclusion that NO natural numbers actually exist that meet 
that PRR, just like G claimed, so it is correct.

> 
> Memorizing a view and insisting that this view must
> be correct because that is what you memorized is what
> mindless robots would do.
> 

And making up an idea and refusing to test it or compare it to facts, 
like you do just shows that you are just an ingorant pathological lying 
idiot who recklessly disregards the truth because you only beleive your 
own lies.

Sorry, you are just proving you are unfit for logic. My guess is you are 
going to be working out that infinite proof in Gehenna.