Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v72no8$kinb$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Richard is proved wrong Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 11:48:08 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 36 Message-ID: <v72no8$kinb$1@dont-email.me> References: <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com> <2d0b6260615af8afac79ee8de57bcd45c2f2056f@i2pn2.org> <v6fk9p$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> <v6m42j$1tj30$9@dont-email.me> <v6o0an$2bqh7$1@dont-email.me> <v6oo1j$2fuva$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 10:48:09 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="eb7bc3c094cc39ab136406329ffd9913"; logging-data="674539"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+whvtyOy0vCb56JBu7SpkG" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:NTK4rX3TGqiiBJH2+7Fx1egUqZU= Bytes: 2434 On 2024-07-11 13:51:47 +0000, olcott said: > On 7/11/2024 2:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-07-10 13:58:42 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 7/8/24 8:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> Every time that you affirm your above error you prove >>> yourself to be a liar. >> >> It is quite obvious that you are the liar. You have not shown any error >> above. >> > > Richard said the infinite proofs derive knowledge > and that infinite proofs never derive knowledge. That is included in my "not shown above", in particular the word "proofs". -- Mikko