Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v79u7p$27j17$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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 21:21:45 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 166 Message-ID: <v79u7p$27j17$1@dont-email.me> References: <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com> <8bd5f2159853ff17ef81b27a85141bccc324e7d9@i2pn2.org> <v6fkrb$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> <v79rdm$23h44$1@dont-email.me> <90f397326f36fd58bd153023a5bc2366026f774c@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 04:21:46 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="59b16eacfb44a5409827c0dee7d881bf"; logging-data="2346023"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ldgN8Iyd3yx/o4Fc6WU4x" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:8hQkI8pJDgo73H2O93BxGQFLBcg= In-Reply-To: <90f397326f36fd58bd153023a5bc2366026f774c@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 8259 On 7/17/2024 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/17/24 9:33 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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. >> > No, YOU miss the point, it could be: > > False (which in this case must be provable, since false means the > existance of a counter example, that can be show to make the conjecture > false in a finite number of steps. > OK > True, and provable in the Theory. > > True, and not provable in the Theory, but provable in a Meta-Theory that > transfers knowledge to the Theory. > > True, and not provably anywhere, and thus unknowable. > True by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations, (thus having a truth-maker) yet unknowable. > You don't seem to understand that Proofs are limited to the Theory, but ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========