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,comp.theory
Subject: Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- Olcott shows
 his stupidity.
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 22:10:07 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ff5d14cf5d51914ed81a7b79d2723b35f8228db2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.org> <v6cvqs$5vir$2@dont-email.me>
 <efced1648cf7ddc1c257d7c4369add3b391dd005@i2pn2.org>
 <v6d2r0$6cgn$2@dont-email.me>
 <931fe5b1e73d204bf20a268dd025489e3040371d@i2pn2.org>
 <v6e5ho$bbcb$2@dont-email.me>
 <0f3e40caf51b61ebb05c4ec2ae44042bff632017@i2pn2.org>
 <v6el1u$e6tb$1@dont-email.me>
 <3c9ef913b1fbbca50c1a4acd02401906646327ed@i2pn2.org>
 <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <2d0b6260615af8afac79ee8de57bcd45c2f2056f@i2pn2.org>
 <v6fk9p$mr5k$1@dont-email.me>
 <8bd5f2159853ff17ef81b27a85141bccc324e7d9@i2pn2.org>
 <v6fkrb$mr5k$2@dont-email.me> <v6fl9a$mr5k$3@dont-email.me>
 <v6huj5$12ktu$2@dont-email.me>
 <7387a77d06e4b00a1c27a447e2744a4f10b25e49@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i08a$12ktu$4@dont-email.me>
 <c81e1794259853dfd7724900ebfab484679615be@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i1rm$12ktu$7@dont-email.me>
 <51551fc46b9bf2cc4a3e0636f1b693bf60963ca2@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i45d$13ejf$2@dont-email.me>
 <004c809275c53d0550cf0c93cdd351f3efbfcc62@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i5o2$13ejf$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 02:10:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2621132"; 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: <v6i5o2$13ejf$7@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7467
Lines: 145

On 7/8/24 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/8/2024 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/8/24 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/8/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/8/24 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/8/24 8:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/8/24 8:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/7/2024 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/7/2024 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Formal logic is a subset of this.
>>>>>>>>>>> Not-a-logic-sentence(PA,g) ≡ (~True(PA,g) ∧ ~True(PA,~g))
>>>>>>>>>>> There are no truth preserving operations in PA to g or to ~g
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Within my analytical framework this Tarski sentence is merely
>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True. // (1) and (2) combined
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are no truth preserving operations in Tarski's
>>>>>>>>>> theory to x if and only if There are truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>> operations in Tarski's theory to x
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There cannot possibly be an infinite proof that proves
>>>>>>>>> that there is no finite proof of Tarski x in Tarski's theory
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who says there needs to be a infinite proof, since there is no 
>>>>>>>> such thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I said, one example of such an x is Godel's G.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The infinite proof of the Goldbach conjecture
>>>>>>>>> (if it is true) continues to find more true
>>>>>>>>> cases than it had before, thus makes progress
>>>>>>>>> towards its never ending goal (if its true).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or, it continue to show that there is no counter examples.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Progress" on an infinite path isn't really measurable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The cycles in the following two cases never make any progress
>>>>>>>>> towards any goal they are merely stuck in infinite loops.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which just means you are on the wrong path. One wrong path 
>>>>>>>> doesn't me that there is no path.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Prolog unify_with_occurs_check test means that
>>>>>>>>> LP is stuck in an infinite loop that makes no progress
>>>>>>>>> towards resolution. I invented Minimal Type Theory to
>>>>>>>>> see this, then I noticed that Prolog does the same thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is irrelevent, since Prolog can't handle the basics of the 
>>>>>>>> field that Traski assumes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LP := ~(L ⊢ LP)
>>>>>>>>> 00 ~ 01
>>>>>>>>> 01 ⊢ 01, 00
>>>>>>>>> 02 L
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The cycle in the direct graph of LP is
>>>>>>>>> an infinite loop that make no progress
>>>>>>>>> towards the goal of evaluating LP as
>>>>>>>>> true or false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Failure to prove by example doesn't show something isn't true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are just proving you are stupid and don't know what you are 
>>>>>>>> talking about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every expression of language that cannot be proven
>>>>>>> or refuted by any finite or infinite sequence of
>>>>>>> truth preserving operations connecting it to its
>>>>>>> meaning specified as a finite expression of language
>>>>>>> is rejected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tarski's x like Godel's G are know to be true by an infinite 
>>>>>> sequence of truth preserving operations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *You already agreed that such things can never be known*
>>>>>
>>>>> The Goldbach conjecture is known to be true or false
>>>>> yet not which one. Anything known to be true by an infinite
>>>>> sequence of truth preserving operations contradicts the
>>>>> fact that nothing can be known to be true by an infinite
>>>>> sequence of truth preserving operations.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, if ALL we have is a statement that can only be shown by an 
>>>> infinite series of steps, then we can not know that.
>>>>
>>>> But many things that take an infinite number of steps in one system, 
>>>> might have a finite proof in another system that can relate back to 
>>>> the original one. KNOWLEDGE can cross system boundaries under the 
>>>> right conditons, even if the proof doesn't transfer.
>>>>
>>>> Just like Godel's G, that in F, needs an infinite number of tests to 
>>>> prove in F, but by knowing from the meta-F of the implication of 
>>>> that relationship, we can find the "shortcut" to proving it in a 
>>>> finite number of steps.
>>>> Goldbach's conjecture might be false, in which case that is provable 
>>>> by just showing the even number that can't be the sum of two primes.
>>>>
>>>> There might be a finite proof of it, either in the normal 
>>>> mathematics, or in a meta-mathematics that allows us to transfer 
>>>> that knowledge back to ordinary arithmetic.
>>>>
>>>> Or, it might be that no such proof exists in any meta-mathematics, 
>>>> and if so, it will just be unknown if it is true.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then why do you claiming that we can?
>>>
>>
>> I don't, we know 
> 
> Then why keep claiming it?
> 

Claiming what?

You keep on over trimming, I guess to just show how decietful you are.

You are just proving how stupid you are.