Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 21:25:48 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 144
Message-ID: <uvsknc$2mq5c$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$1@dont-email.me> <uvq359$1doq3$4@i2pn2.org>
 <uvrbvs$2acf7$1@dont-email.me> <uvs70t$1h01f$1@i2pn2.org>
 <uvsgcl$2i80k$1@dont-email.me> <uvsj4v$1h01e$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 04:25:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f3a181c769537c22322d40afc07500b1";
	logging-data="2844844"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18R7VP9wye/eowBHqPClud8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5TnJ91bGjYMj+ZHd/tHRH+EBdLU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uvsj4v$1h01e$1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7442

On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a 
>>>>>> similar
>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Parphrased as*
>>>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves 
>>>>>> that the
>>>>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or 
>>>>>> false.
>>>>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING.
>>>>>
>>>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually is, 
>>>>> because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and don't 
>>>>> even understand that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number that 
>>>>> has a specific property. Until you understand that, your continued 
>>>>> talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving your 
>>>>> absoulute STUPIDITY.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the 
>>>>>> primary
>>>>>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are 
>>>>> arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop
>>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names
>>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing
>>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
>>>>
>>>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
>>>> hear nothing form me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.
>>>
>>> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because 
>>> it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.
>>>
>>> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that satisfies 
>>> a particular property, which will be a truth bearing statement (The 
>>> number must either exist or it doesn't)
>>>
>>> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.
>>>
>>
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
> 
> Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but incompletenwss, 
> which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read what you said above).
> 
> INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that 
> are true.
> 
> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with 
> undecidability, 

*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*

https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf 


> in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative 
> Recursive Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly 
> computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in 
> finite number of operations).
> 
> So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or doesn't 
> know the difference in the topics).
> 
> I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't match 
> your subject, because I understand your general confusion on the topics.
> 
> So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong word, 
> which just shows your total ignorance about what you are talking about.
> 
> Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put together a 
> coherent argument?
> 
> You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to 
> deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about Godel's 
> argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you have no idea 
> what he said, but try to put your own false words into his mouth,
> 
> 
>>
>>> That you repeat the error after being corrected, because apparently 
>>> you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
>>>
>>> You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer to 
>>> it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its 
>>> interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic 
>>> system derived from F.
>>>
>>> The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, so 
>>> it seems worthless to repeat them every time.
>>
> 

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