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 22:19:13 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 182
Message-ID: <v7a1jh$27tk0$2@dont-email.me>
References: <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <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>
 <v79vli$27tk0$1@dont-email.me>
 <d0f5ce39cbd35249049472c2735750ee48cc3946@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 05:19:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="59b16eacfb44a5409827c0dee7d881bf";
	logging-data="2356864"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+xs9/rGDJZuUzdOYjA7XIx"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BLORbfxaP8fAjDcSmEsMVeiDyDc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <d0f5ce39cbd35249049472c2735750ee48cc3946@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 9375

On 7/17/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/17/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========