Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.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: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth
 Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood)
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 11:09:11 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4kaqn$2219$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4da12$1sioe$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4dbmf$3qbnc$3@i2pn2.org> <v4dcd6$1sioe$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4df0h$3qbnd$1@i2pn2.org> <v4dhf5$1tsdf$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4dja1$3qbnd$5@i2pn2.org> <v4djhf$1tsdf$6@dont-email.me>
 <v4dk7b$3qbnc$8@i2pn2.org> <v4dl3b$225kb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4dn5u$3qbnd$8@i2pn2.org> <v4dop4$22o4a$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4dq07$3qbnc$12@i2pn2.org> <v4dqq0$2353n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4el9m$3rsd6$3@i2pn2.org> <v4f3ec$2akmh$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4g65a$3tn6q$1@i2pn2.org> <v4g6vr$2ic0g$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4gc0b$3tn6r$6@i2pn2.org> <v4gcjc$2msea$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4geab$3tn6r$8@i2pn2.org> <v4gg0s$2nim8$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4ha63$3v16r$2@i2pn2.org> <v4hfq9$2sdqr$5@dont-email.me>
 <v4ijlc$kqh$1@i2pn2.org> <v4injg$348ha$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4iraj$kqh$4@i2pn2.org> <v4isva$392jh$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4itis$kqh$7@i2pn2.org> <v4iutm$39bc0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4jv2n$222a$2@i2pn2.org> <v4k18r$3f0hc$4@dont-email.me>
 <v4k6ag$2218$7@i2pn2.org> <v4k9bv$3gc4t$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 15:09:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="67625"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v4k9bv$3gc4t$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4872
Lines: 68

On 6/15/24 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 8:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/24 8:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2024 6:48 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 21:39:50 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>
>>>>> The key aspect of all of this is that if the halting problem is 
>>>>> correct
>>>>> then truth itself is fundamentally broken. Since truth itself cannot
>>>>> possibly be fundamentally broken it must be fallible human 
>>>>> understanding
>>>>> of truth that is actually broken.
>>>> I've got bad news for you, and you're a century late. Gödel proved that
>>>> not all true statements are provable. It sure would have been nice.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He didn't even prove this.
>>> He proved that a statement that can be expressed in PA
>>> cannot be proving in PA that is not true in PA yet can be
>>> proved in matamath thus is true in metamath.
>>
>> No, you are just showing you don't know what you are talking about.
>>
>> You have admitted that you don't even understand the actual statement 
>> he was using, but can only understand it as the simplication through 
>> implication in the meta-thoery.
>>
>> G, the statement about the non-existance of a Natural Number 'g' that 
>> satisfied the specified relationship.
>>
>> It can be shown (in the meta-theory) that no such number can exist, so 
>> G must be true. Either the number 'g' exists or it doesn't so their 
>> can be no middle ground, and it if is shown (in the meta theory) that 
>> if such a number 'g' existed, then we could build a proof (as encoded 
>> in the finite number 'g') in PA that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY no such 
>> number exist. 
> 
> *This is the crux of your correct insight*
>> There can not be a number that proves that itself doesn't exist, so 
>> there must not be such a number.
>>
> 
> There can be no proof in PA that G cannot be proven in PA
> because such a proof in PA requires a sequence of inference
> steps in PA that prove that they themselves do not exist.
> 
> *To sum this up in my terminology G has no truthmaker in PA*
> 

You have it wrong because you don't understand the meaning of your own 
terms or are just lying.

Yes, there is no PROOF in PA that no number 'g' exists, so no proof in 
PA of G.

That does not mean there isn't a set of TRUTH-MAKERS that establish that 
G is true, and that no number 'g exists.

It takes an INFINITE number of steps, that of testing each individual 
Natural Number to see if it satisfies the relationship, and it turns out 
that none of them will. This is not a "Proof", as BY DEFINITION, Proofs 
are a finite sequence of steps, but it DOES establish that G is true, 
and no such number exists.

So, if your terminology says that isn't a Truth-Maker fof G, your 
truthmaker terminology is just incorrect.

Note, most statements don't have *A* Truth-maker, but a set of 
Truth-makers that establish them.