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: Analytic Truth-makers
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:01:11 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e41a2d324173031e1fe47acc0fd69b94b7aba55e@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7m26d$nrr4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 00:01:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="21997"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v7m26d$nrr4$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2860
Lines: 39

On 7/22/24 12:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> I have focused on analytic truth-makers where an expression of language 
> x is shown to be true in language L by a sequence of truth preserving 
> operations from the semantic meaning of x in L to x in L.
> 
> In rare cases such as the Goldbach conjecture this may require an 
> infinite sequence of truth preserving operations thus making analytic 
> knowledge a subset of analytic truth. 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> 
> There are cases where there is no finite or infinite sequence of
> truth preserving operations to x or ~x in L because x is self-
> contradictory in L. In this case x is not a truth-bearer in L.
> 
> 
> 

So, now you ADMIT that Formal Logical systems can be "incomplete" 
because there exist analytic truths in them that can not be proven with 
an actual formal proof (which, by definition, must be finite).

I guess you will stop saying that Godel must be wrong.

Godel's statement G, that says that there is no natural number g that 
satifies a specific Primative Recursive Relationship that was developed 
in a Meta-Theory of the F that the statement G is put in.

This statement is shown to be true by a proof in that meta-theory, and 
shown to be true by an infinite set of steps in the Theory F, and it is 
shown that there can not be a finite proof in F to prove the statement G.

I guess now you admit that is all correct, and all your rebuttals about 
it not possible being true were just your own mistakes that became lies 
by the reckless disregard for the actual truth that you now see and 
apparently renounce your old arguements.

Note, your claim of them being "rare" cases is likely not really true. 
The problem is that unless we find a meta-theory to support a proof of 
the statement, we can't tell if the statement IS true, so who knows how 
many of the unsolved problems are actually unsolvable in their system.