Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology
 providing situational context.
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:48:55 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <dcd55ee22dc58a68b347bb8928149516c36cf1ef@i2pn2.org>
References: <vr1shq$1qopn$1@dont-email.me> <vr2qmt$2ij53$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr2r34$2d3ah$7@dont-email.me> <vr2tti$2kq04$3@dont-email.me>
 <vr3u4l$3idjs$2@dont-email.me> <vr4kkr$48ff$2@dont-email.me>
 <7f68c434c15abfc9d4b645992344f0e851f031a3@i2pn2.org>
 <vr4t3e$bkso$5@dont-email.me> <vr50bg$ed3o$5@dont-email.me>
 <vr5abg$m5ov$6@dont-email.me>
 <8ea8c8f1c661d0f2eef855af9b4c171d4f574826@i2pn2.org>
 <vr6po4$1udpn$7@dont-email.me>
 <4965dcbb84fc29c9ba9d3cea39b59a8608bfeb66@i2pn2.org>
 <vr7v51$2u81k$3@dont-email.me>
 <7db5f56a38a6b6eda2b63acc2568f5dedcc55efd@i2pn2.org>
 <vr9fp6$bv13$5@dont-email.me> <vrbrkd$2ii4j$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrbss5$2j07c$1@dont-email.me>
 <2dd0fa97e2387ba4bca36b40ca16925933b35d9a@i2pn2.org>
 <vrfe7q$1oabl$1@dont-email.me>
 <0e92642bf4519e50ba48d51b52d17749c6e19664@i2pn2.org>
 <vri3va$3egq$1@dont-email.me>
 <9495b0ea31b3c2559cf9515bfabe071d48cc9d39@i2pn2.org>
 <vrinjq$kefg$2@dont-email.me> <vrj702$14v65$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrjboo$17u8e$2@dont-email.me> <vrjqf5$1l2bf$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 23:48:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1199593"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vrjqf5$1l2bf$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3999
Lines: 45

On 3/21/25 9:44 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/21/2025 4:33 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 21/03/2025 08:11, Mikko wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Another part of human knowledge is that there are fools that try to
>>> argue against proven theorems.
>>
>> Well, if it ain't proven it ain't yet a theorem. But is that enough?
>>
>> The background to the work of Church, Turing, Gödel and the like is 
>> Hilbert's second problem: "The compatibility of the arithmetical 
>> axioms", and the background to /that/ problem is that in the late 19th 
>> century mathematicians were occasionally coming up with proofs of X, 
>> only to discover in the literature that not-X had already been proved. 
>> The question then was which proof had the bug?
>>
>> But what if they were /both/ right? It was an obvious worry, and so 
>> arose the great question: is mathematics consistent?
>>
>> And Gödel proved not only that it isn't, but that it can't be.
>>
>> Fortunately, to date inconsistency has tended to surface only in 
>> corner cases like the Halting Problem, but Gödel's Hobgoblin hovers 
>> over mathematics to this day.
>>
> 
> When a formal system begins with the basic facts of human
> general knowledge expressed using language and can derive
> each element of the set of human general knowledge that can
> be expressed using language on the basis of these basic facts
> by applying only truth preserving operations then undecidability
> and incompleteness are impossible.
> 

Except that, as explained, the "basic facts of human general knowledge" 
do not define a consistan logical system.

All you are doing is showing that you don't understand what you are 
talking about and just assume that some mythical Truth Fairy can 
straighten out your mess and make it right.

Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity and ignorance. Since you have 
admitted that you aren't using the proper definition of core terms, 
everything you say needs to be treated as the FRAUD that it is.