Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- Richard caught
 in inescapable contradiction
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 21:31:40 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 116
Message-ID: <v6i7ec$17hpj$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.org> <v6csla$1otr$2@dont-email.me>
 <3f12eb90be522441c8b95d17d25767fcaf72ed2d@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cvqs$5vir$2@dont-email.me>
 <efced1648cf7ddc1c257d7c4369add3b391dd005@i2pn2.org>
 <v6d2r0$6cgn$2@dont-email.me>
 <931fe5b1e73d204bf20a268dd025489e3040371d@i2pn2.org>
 <v6e5ho$bbcb$2@dont-email.me>
 <0f3e40caf51b61ebb05c4ec2ae44042bff632017@i2pn2.org>
 <v6el1u$e6tb$1@dont-email.me>
 <3c9ef913b1fbbca50c1a4acd02401906646327ed@i2pn2.org>
 <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <2d0b6260615af8afac79ee8de57bcd45c2f2056f@i2pn2.org>
 <v6fk9p$mr5k$1@dont-email.me>
 <8bd5f2159853ff17ef81b27a85141bccc324e7d9@i2pn2.org>
 <v6fkrb$mr5k$2@dont-email.me> <v6fl9a$mr5k$3@dont-email.me>
 <v6huj5$12ktu$2@dont-email.me>
 <7387a77d06e4b00a1c27a447e2744a4f10b25e49@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i08a$12ktu$4@dont-email.me>
 <c81e1794259853dfd7724900ebfab484679615be@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i5s1$17hpj$1@dont-email.me>
 <3cdc1b8e116882ff71cf0a27cc4c56017aa3b343@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 04:31:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b5da22ad5ca0d0ccd5a9478202582a44";
	logging-data="1296179"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/yKkzI892r3qCDBFYtpYS6"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:S0NaShjCQSakaXhCLmHImwjv0mU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <3cdc1b8e116882ff71cf0a27cc4c56017aa3b343@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5796

On 7/8/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/8/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/8/24 8:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/8/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/8/24 8:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/7/2024 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/7/2024 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Formal logic is a subset of this.
>>>>>>>> Not-a-logic-sentence(PA,g) ≡ (~True(PA,g) ∧ ~True(PA,~g))
>>>>>>>> There are no truth preserving operations in PA to g or to ~g
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Within my analytical framework this Tarski sentence is merely
>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True. // (1) and (2) combined
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are no truth preserving operations in Tarski's
>>>>>>> theory to x if and only if There are truth preserving
>>>>>>> operations in Tarski's theory to x
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There cannot possibly be an infinite proof that proves
>>>>>> that there is no finite proof of Tarski x in Tarski's theory
>>>>>
>>>>> Who says there needs to be a infinite proof, since there is no such 
>>>>> thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said, one example of such an x is Godel's G.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The infinite proof of the Goldbach conjecture
>>>>>> (if it is true) continues to find more true
>>>>>> cases than it had before, thus makes progress
>>>>>> towards its never ending goal (if its true).
>>>>>
>>>>> or, it continue to show that there is no counter examples.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Progress" on an infinite path isn't really measurable.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The cycles in the following two cases never make any progress
>>>>>> towards any goal they are merely stuck in infinite loops.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which just means you are on the wrong path. One wrong path doesn't 
>>>>> me that there is no path.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Prolog unify_with_occurs_check test means that
>>>>>> LP is stuck in an infinite loop that makes no progress
>>>>>> towards resolution. I invented Minimal Type Theory to
>>>>>> see this, then I noticed that Prolog does the same thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is irrelevent, since Prolog can't handle the basics of the 
>>>>> field that Traski assumes.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LP := ~(L ⊢ LP)
>>>>>> 00 ~ 01
>>>>>> 01 ⊢ 01, 00
>>>>>> 02 L
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The cycle in the direct graph of LP is
>>>>>> an infinite loop that make no progress
>>>>>> towards the goal of evaluating LP as
>>>>>> true or false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So?
>>>>>
>>>>> Failure to prove by example doesn't show something isn't true.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just proving you are stupid and don't know what you are 
>>>>> talking about.
>>>>
>>>> Every expression of language that cannot be proven
>>>> or refuted by any finite or infinite sequence of
>>>> truth preserving operations connecting it to its
>>>> meaning specified as a finite expression of language
>>>> is rejected.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So?
>>>
>>> Tarski's x like Godel's G are know to be true by an infinite sequence 
>>> of truth preserving operations.
>>>
>>
>> Liar?
>>
> 
> What lie?
> 
> I guess you have confused yourself and lost your train of thought (which 
> I think is just N gauge)

Maybe the actual problem is that your ADD is much worse than I thought.

You know that infinite proofs never determine knowledge AND claim
that infinite proofs determine knowledge.


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