Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Infinite proofs do not derive knowledge --- Honest confusion ?
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 20:33:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 139
Message-ID: <v79rdm$23h44$1@dont-email.me>
References: <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <2d0b6260615af8afac79ee8de57bcd45c2f2056f@i2pn2.org>
 <v6fk9p$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$2@dont-email.me> <v72no8$kinb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v73adp$mjis$19@dont-email.me>
 <359671d4a94f2caa82dc3c4884daa2ff73396a8d@i2pn2.org>
 <v74ner$13bn1$2@dont-email.me>
 <d72aa54790eaa53cbe11dfccca12c67249d0d9f6@i2pn2.org>
 <v75st8$19j7l$1@dont-email.me>
 <0c7d3ace11c3a5a50ac7d7beb8b2091114ad82d3@i2pn2.org>
 <v7788t$1h739$1@dont-email.me> <v79m35$22le2$1@dont-email.me>
 <4dc67db2be217a69761ae8dc59494bde8fb5e7eb@i2pn2.org>
 <v79orm$2335g$1@dont-email.me>
 <91f217b71160d6d4c8f43b751a2227d6025157e1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 03:33:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="59b16eacfb44a5409827c0dee7d881bf";
	logging-data="2212996"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19lWF53cDidw1IUx58qjiaa"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BvR/Ac8xAgrV4N0IJZ5gifjwqBU=
In-Reply-To: <91f217b71160d6d4c8f43b751a2227d6025157e1@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7180

On 7/17/2024 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/17/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/17/2024 7:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/17/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/16/2024 8:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/16/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/16/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/16/2024 6:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/15/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/24 10:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2024 3:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>  > Tarski's x like Godel's G are know to be true by an
>>>>>>>>>>>  > infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We cannot know that anything is true by an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of truth preserving operations as Richard
>>>>>>>>>>> falsely claims above.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are just mixing up your words because you don't understd 
>>>>>>>>>> that wrores. amnd just making yourself into a LIAR.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Our KNOWLEDGE that the statement is true, comes from a finite 
>>>>>>>>>> proof in the meta system. 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus zero knowledge comes from the infinite proof
>>>>>>>>> You spelled "known" incorrectly as "know" yet claimed
>>>>>>>>> that knowledge comes form an infinite proof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can't even pay attention to your own words ???
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no "infinite proof".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> *know to be true*
>>>>>>> *know to be true*
>>>>>>> *know to be true*
>>>>>>> *know to be true*
>>>>>>> *know to be true*
>>>>>>> by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing can ever be known to be true
>>>>>>> by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, you just don't parse it right because you don't understand 
>>>>>> english.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the "by" refers to the closer referent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it is KNOW TO BE
>>>>>> TRUE BY an infinite sequence of truth persevng operations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The infinite sequence establish what makes it True, not what make 
>>>>>> the truth known.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words when you are caught with your hand in the
>>>>> cookie jar stealing cookies you deny:
>>>>> (a) That your hand is in the jar
>>>>> (b) That there is a jar
>>>>> (c) That there are any cookies
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  > Tarski's x like Godel's G are know to be true by an
>>>>>  > infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
>>>>>  >
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From immediately above* [somethings] are
>>>> know to be true by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing is
>>>> known to be true by an infinite sequence of truth preserving 
>>>> operations.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But it is known to be (true by an infinite sequence of truth 
>>> preserving operations)
>>>
>>
>> Some cases such as the Goldbach conjecture's truth or falsity may
>> require in infinite sequence of truth preserving operations as
>> their truthmaker. In these cases the truth or falsity remains
>> permanently unknown.
>>
> 
> Unless there is a meta-theory that can be discovered that allows the 
> infinite chain to be reduced to a finite proof.
> 

You miss the point. True (or false) and unknowable.

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