Path: ...!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 21:46:10 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 169
Message-ID: <v79vli$27tk0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <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>
 <v79u7p$27j17$1@dont-email.me>
 <7731a5d6b20e88b83054ac75eb0e621c7b5bface@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 04:46:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="59b16eacfb44a5409827c0dee7d881bf";
	logging-data="2356864"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+N9ELqyX7KxL3IYDCed1wp"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rBNzTNCEeMsYvvRfT3rviaofPGw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <7731a5d6b20e88b83054ac75eb0e621c7b5bface@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 8602

On 7/17/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/17/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========