Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 23:11:06 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d0f5ce39cbd35249049472c2735750ee48cc3946@i2pn2.org>
References: <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <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> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 03:11:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3650738"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v79vli$27tk0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 9086
Lines: 177

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:
>>>>
>>>> False (which in this case must be provable, since false means the 
>>>> existance of a counter example, that can be show to make the 
>>>> conjecture false in a finite number of steps.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK
>>>
>>>> True, and provable in the Theory.
>>>>
>>>> True, and not provable in the Theory, but provable in a Meta-Theory 
>>>> that transfers knowledge to the Theory.
>>>>
>>>> True, and not provably anywhere, and thus unknowable.
>>>>
>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========