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: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new
 basis --- infallibly correct
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 14:13:03 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e3866f9771ef87549806453ea06529aed40c6789@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vgnsho$3qq7s$2@dont-email.me>
 <vgo157$n00$1@news.muc.de> <vgo4ia$3sfle$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgo7ri$30iv$1@news.muc.de> <vgo89i$3t6n8$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgoand$2464$1@news.muc.de> <vgobg7$3tnrn$2@dont-email.me>
 <vgodcf$kll$1@news.muc.de> <vgoed9$3ucjr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgoi51$kll$2@news.muc.de> <vgojp1$3v611$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgol50$kll$3@news.muc.de> <vgom8r$3vue8$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgonlv$kll$4@news.muc.de> <vgoqv6$qht$2@dont-email.me>
 <vgq0dv$1trm$1@news.muc.de> <vgqifj$e0q0$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 19:13:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1860641"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vgqifj$e0q0$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6577
Lines: 135

On 11/10/24 10:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/10/2024 4:03 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/9/2024 4:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/9/2024 3:45 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>>>>> Gödel understood mathematical logic full well (indeed, played a
>>>>>> significant part in its development),
>>
>>>>> He utterly failed to understand that his understanding
>>>>> of provable in meta-math cannot mean true in PA unless
>>>>> also provable in PA according to the deductive inference
>>>>> foundation of all logic.
>>
>>>> You're lying in your usual fashion, namely by lack of expertise.  It is
>>>> entirely your lack of understanding.  If Gödel's proof was not 
>>>> rigorously
>>>> correct, his result would have been long discarded.  It is correct.
>>
>>> Even if every other detail is 100% correct without
>>> "true and unprovable" (the heart of incompleteness)
>>> it utterly fails to make its incompleteness conclusion.
>>
>> You are, of course, wrong here.  You are too ignorant to make such a
>> judgment.  I believe you've never even read through and verified a proof
>> of Gödel's theorem.
>>
> 
> If you had a basis in reasoning to show that I was wrong
> on this specific point you could provide it. You have no
> basis in reasoning on this specific point all you have is
> presumption.

If you gave some actual formal basis for your reasoning, then perhaps a 
formal reply could be made.

Since your arguement starts with mis-interpreatations of what Godel's 
proof does, you start off in error.

> 
>>> Perhaps you simply don't understand it at that level
>>> thus will never have any idea that I proved I am correct.
>>
>> More lies.  You don't even understand what the word "proved" means.
>>
> 
> Here is what Mathworld construes as proof
> A rigorous mathematical argument which unequivocally
> demonstrates the truth of a given proposition. A
> mathematical statement that has been proven is called
> a theorem. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Proof.html
> 
> the principle of explosion is the law according to which any statement 
> can be proven from a contradiction.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

Right, and I have shown your that proof, and you haven't shown what 
statement in that proof is wrong, so you have accepted it.

Thus, YOU are the one disagreeing with yourself.

> 
> Validity and Soundness
> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
> premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
> to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said
> to be invalid.
> 
> A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is
> both valid, and all of its premises are actually true.
> Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.
> https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
> 
> Here is the PL Olcott correction / clarification of all of
> them. A proof begins with a set of expressions of language
> known to be true (true premises) and derives a conclusion
> that is a necessary consequence by applying truth preserving
> operations to the true premises.

But you aren't allowed to CHANGE those meanings.

Sorry, but until you actually and formally fully define your logic 
system, you can't start using it.

And, if you want to talk in your logic system, you can't say it refutes 
arguments built in other logic system.

At best you can show those proofs can't be built in your system, but 
first you will need to show that your idea of a logic system can be used 
to build formal systems with the power described as the prerequisites of 
those proofs, which for Godel says you need to first show that your 
equivalent of PA that can be built in your system supports the needed 
properties.

My guesss is that will take you 10-20 years, if you can even do it, my 
guess is it is actually beyond your ability to understand the processes.

> 
> Mathworld
> is correct yet fails to provide enough details.
> 
> The principle of explosion
> is incorrect because its conclusion is not a necessary
> consequence of applying truth preserving operations.
> It fails to require semantic relevance.

What step in the proof was wrong?

Your failure means you accept that your logic is just inconsistant.

> 
> Validity and Soundness
> is incorrect because its conclusion is not a necessary
> consequence of applying truth preserving operations.
> It fails to require semantic relevance.

I don't think you understand what "semantics" are in formal logic.

It semms you really do need to start by throwing out EVERYTHING from the 
existing logic systems, and fully define what you mean, and see what you 
can prove with that.

Something on the order of Euclid's geometry.

> 
>>> -- 
>>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>
> 
>