Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 18:41:35 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <uvuruv$1kece$1@i2pn2.org>
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>
 <uvtuep$31kt3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 22:41:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1718670"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <uvtuep$31kt3$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 11167
Lines: 226

On 4/19/24 10:18 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

And that talks about "undecidability" being an attribute of a SPECIFIC 
statement, while incompleteness is an attribute of the WHOLE SYSTEM.

The use of "Decidability" as to the provablility of the statement is, as 
I remember, a more recent usage, since the theory relating provability 
and programs has been shown (and the walls between varios fields has 
crumbled).

We still go back to your LIE that Godel is claiming that F is Incomplete 
because of his showing a statement that MUST be True, and also 
Unprovable is actually a statement that just isn't a truth bearer.

THAT is a LIE, because his statement, IS a statement that MUST be a 
Truth Bearer (or Mathematics is fundamentally broken) as it relates to 
the existance or non-existance of a Number that matches a specific 
criteria, which must either exist or not.

> 
>> 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.
>>
>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========