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 --- Olcott is proved
 wrong
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 07:53:39 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d72aa54790eaa53cbe11dfccca12c67249d0d9f6@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 11:53:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3477624"; 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: <v74ner$13bn1$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4775
Lines: 85

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".

You just can't read, it seems. Maybe you just don't understand what 
truth and proof actually mean.

The fact we know there exists an infinite chain comes from the fact we 
have a finite proof in the meta, and the knowledge that this knowledge 
transfers from the meta to the original system by how the meta was 
constructed.

Yes, you can't KNOW something that is only established by an infinite 
chain of steps, but you can know it if there exists in another system a 
finite proof and knowledge of transfersbility of that knowledge.

You are just getting yourself stuck in knots with your ignorance. All 
you are showing is the limitations of your ability to think about things.

There is nothing wrong with my words, just you understanding of them 
because you don't understand the basics that the words are based on.

Because you made yourself STUPID because you decided you didn't want to 
learn the topics because you were afraid the knwoledge would brainwash 
you, so you brainwashed yourself with stupidity instead.