Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 09:18:01 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 209
Message-ID: <uvtuep$31kt3$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>
 <uvsode$2ne5d$1@dont-email.me> <uvtje3$1iq0b$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 16:18:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f3a181c769537c22322d40afc07500b1";
	logging-data="3199907"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+dezfzhOqDMzp18uYmf8nf"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5kf56U7dORitakLWxkmg+24+IRo=
In-Reply-To: <uvtje3$1iq0b$1@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 10307

On 4/19/2024 6:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/18/24 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> No, because Godel was NOT talking about "undecidability" but 
> "Incompleteness".
> 
> Even though there is a tie between the two topics, they are separate 
> topics.
> 

Not according to this source

Undecidability
The non-existence of an algorithm or the impossibility of proving or 
disproving a statement within a formal system.

https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Undecidability#:~:text=The%20non%2Dexistence%20of%20an,statement%20within%20a%20formal%20system.

> This just shows that your native lanuguage is just LIES, as that is all 
> you can focus on.
> 
> Note, you have done NOTHING to refute all the errors I pointed out about 
> your statements of Godel's proof, so you initial statement in the 
> paraphrase is still shown to be a LIE, and your whole proof just 
> incorrect and unsound, as you are by your basic nature.
> 
> Your concept of "Correct Reasoning" is NOT "Correct", or even really 
> based on "Reasoning", because you just don't understand either concept.
> 
>>
>>> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========