Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 21:50:02 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f3c8332f4b42f8e085d4d4dac017ccc8a0dc5a5f@i2pn2.org>
References: <vnh0sq$35mcm$1@dont-email.me> <vnqm3p$1apip$1@dont-email.me>
 <vnqsbh$1c5sq$1@dont-email.me> <vnsm90$1pr86$1@dont-email.me>
 <vnte6s$1tra8$1@dont-email.me> <vnv4tf$2a43e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo0249$2eqdl$1@dont-email.me> <vo1qae$2s4cr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo2i10$302f0$1@dont-email.me> <vo4nj4$3f6so$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo5btf$3ipo2$1@dont-email.me> <vo7ckh$q2p$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo7tdg$36ra$6@dont-email.me> <voa09t$idij$1@dont-email.me>
 <7e532aaf77653daac5ca2b70bf26d0a3bc515abf@i2pn2.org>
 <voceuj$14r1q$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$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 02:50:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1493938"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vpfo75$js1o$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5032
Lines: 79

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:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Tarski anchored his whole proof in the Liar Paradox.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By showing that given the necessary prerequisites, The equivalent 
>>>>>> of the Liar Paradox was a statement that the Truth Predicate had 
>>>>>> to be able to handle, which it can't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It can be easily handled as ~True(LP) & ~True(~LP), Tarski just
>>>>> didn't think it through.
>>>>
>>>> No, it can't. Tarski requires that True be a predicate, i.e, a truth
>>>> valued function of one term. 
>>>
>>> It does not matter a whit what the Hell his misconceptions
>>> required. We simply toss his whole mess out the window and
>>> reformulate a computable Truth predicate that works correctly.
>>
>> But his logic follows from the premises.
>>
>> Maybe your logic just can't handle that level of system.
>>
>>>
>>> It is all ultimately anchored relations between finite
>>> strings even if we must toss all of logical out the window
>>> to do this correctly.
>>
>> And to do what you want, you have to limit your logic system to not be 
>> able to define the full Natural Number system, as that is what allows 
>> Tarski to do what he does (like Godel does).
>>
>>>
>>> We are answering the question:
>>> What are the relationships between arbitrary finite strings
>>> such that the semantic property of True(L, x)
>>> (where L and x are finite strings) can always be correctly
>>> determined for every finite string having a truth value that is
>>> entirely verified by its relation to other finite strings.
>>>
>>
>> And, if the logic system can support the properties of the Natural 
>> Number system, and a definition of the predicate True, it can be shown 
>> that you can create the equivalent of
>>
>> Let P be defined as Not( True(L, P))
>>
>> in that system, and thus P is a semantically valid, 
> 
> Not at all. That is the same as saying you know
> that it is true that all squares are always round.
> 

Really, then where is the error in his derivation?

Just claiming something isn't proving it.

Of course, you do the same with Godel, because you are just too stupid 
to understand the logic used, so you assume it must be wrong, when in 
actualality YOU are wrong.

Your problem is you can only deal with very simple logic systems, 
systems too simple to meet the requirements because you brain is to 
small to understand real mathematics.

You can't even handle the full properties of the Natural Numbers, but 
can only deal with a finite subset of them, which makes ALL of your 
logic fail when you need to apply it to those systems, since you just 
can't handle the infinite, which is where the issue are based.