Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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 22:28:46 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 171
Message-ID: <uvsode$2ne5d$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>
 <uvsknc$2mq5c$1@dont-email.me> <uvsm5p$1h01f$6@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 05:28:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f3a181c769537c22322d40afc07500b1";
	logging-data="2865325"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX198JtCHQBIvdNJHg1aZvdab"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Aem/gS7zZ05iLXtOznZQ1wOhDwA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uvsm5p$1h01f$6@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 8713

On 4/18/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/18/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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
> 
> WHERE does he say that GODEL INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM directly says 
> anything about DECIDABILITY?
> 
> Yes, there is a link between completeness and decidability, as an 
> incomplete system has an undecidable problem, that of the proof 

*In other words you are totally retracting the line that I replied to*
 >>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with
 >>> undecidability,

That is good because I totally agree with the preceding line that you said.

> generator for that statement, and a system with an undeciable problem is 
> incomplete, as if we could prove the correct answer, then a theorem 
> prover could compute the answer, but they are different things.
> 
> And your complaint just shows you don't understand that.
> 
>>
>>> 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