Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception ---
 Ultimate Foundation of Truth
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 18:20:07 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f2e04c396dbde6131f5c9cc0b7ff7dfbe887a983@i2pn2.org>
References: <vnh0sq$35mcm$1@dont-email.me> <vocp21$16c4e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vof6hb$1nh1f$1@dont-email.me> <voflif$1q1mh$2@dont-email.me>
 <vohsmu$29krm$1@dont-email.me> <vp10ic$1e7iv$2@dont-email.me>
 <vp6qjb$2ousc$1@dont-email.me> <vpb1le$3jct4$13@dont-email.me>
 <0f7cd503773838ad12f124f23106d53552e277b8@i2pn2.org>
 <vpbknk$3qig2$1@dont-email.me> <vpc560$3sqf7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpd5r4$2q85$2@dont-email.me>
 <7e3e9d35d880cfcad12f505dfb39c5650cdd249e@i2pn2.org>
 <vpfo75$js1o$1@dont-email.me>
 <f3c8332f4b42f8e085d4d4dac017ccc8a0dc5a5f@i2pn2.org>
 <vpgt6o$tiun$1@dont-email.me>
 <3cf165ef9793e844dc9d5db82aecbc47f9545367@i2pn2.org>
 <vpiubu$1fvqe$1@dont-email.me>
 <080bf2b1c322247548c6ec61c9f054359062ccd4@i2pn2.org>
 <vpj8c9$1hivf$3@dont-email.me>
 <6fc61a762b56308f9919993f29ba3e77f7ba84c7@i2pn2.org>
 <vpl2q5$23vks$6@dont-email.me>
 <41ca355a1f535e767e17d3f4df3d404eb1e61cef@i2pn2.org>
 <vplr1t$28j3a$2@dont-email.me> <vps1n5$3k4j1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vptbtg$3rlov$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 23:20:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2259023"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vptbtg$3rlov$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 2/28/25 5:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/28/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-02-26 01:33:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 2/25/2025 5:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/25/25 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/25/2025 12:15 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Mon, 24 Feb 2025 20:02:49 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/25 6:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/25 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/25 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/25 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 3:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-22 04:44:35 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2025 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/25 6:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2025 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-18 03:59:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure I do.
>>>>>>>>>> A Systems is semantically sound if every statement that can be 
>>>>>>>>>> proven
>>>>>>>>>> is actually true by the systems semantics,
>>>>>>>>> That is very good.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> in other words, the system doesn't allow the proving of a false
>>>>>>>>>> statement.
>>>>>>>>> That is not too bad yet ignores that some expressions might not 
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> any truth value.
>>>>>>>> Which has nothing to do with "soundness".
>>>>>>> When any system assumes that every expression is true or false 
>>>>>>> and is
>>>>>>> capable of encoding expressions that are neither IT IS STUPIDLY 
>>>>>>> WRONG.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In honour of Gödel this is usually called "incomplete".
>>>>>>
>>>>> Where "incomplete" has always been an idiom for stupid wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, only in your faulty logic.
>>>>
>>>> Incomplete means that there are some truths that can't be proven in 
>>>> the system.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That comes from stupidly failing to require {true in the system}
>>> to require {proven in the system}. Fix this one stupid mistake
>>> and all of incompleteness goes away.
>>
>> No, that merely means that "true in the system" is incomplete in some
>> systems (e.g., natural numbers). There are sentences that are true in
>> practical applications of the system but not in the system itself.
>> That is not a defect as it does not prevent useful practical aplications.
>>
> 
> The bottom line here is that expressions that do not have
> a truth-maker are always untrue. Logic screws this up by
> overriding the common meaning of terms with incompatible
> meanings. Provable(common) means has a truth-maker.
> 
> 
> 

But the problem is you try to make statements that have been shown to 
have a truth-make untrue, because you don't understand the conneciton to 
the truth-maker.

You have even admktted that you think logic is just broken, but you 
continue to try to use it, showing you are just a stupid hypocrite.

Yes Provable(common means it has a truth-maker, but only in a sufficient 
manner, not a necessary manner.

Things can have a truth-maker but not be provable, since provable 
implies knowable, and thus must be based on a finite chain of proof.

Things exist that need an infinite chain to show, which is not a proof 
but does make that thing true,

Your problem is you don't understand the infinite, and thus can't 
understand that sort of truth.

Thus, you just stupidly lie about things that you are ignorant of, 
because you can't actually understand the meaning of the word truth.

And you are the one that thinks they are "God" who is by nature an 
infinite being, and thus the one that best understand that which you 
have no understanding of.

Sorry, you are just proving that you are nothing but a pathetic 
pathological lying idiot with no understanding of the actual meaning of 
what he says, but only the glimpses of them when someone distills them 
done to infintile levels, which, by necessity, misses out on the fine 
details and distinctions, that you are just unaware of.

I pity you, as you are just showing how low a man can get in his ability 
to thinks.