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