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 23:04:52 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 228
Message-ID: <v7a495$28f34$1@dont-email.me>
References: <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <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>
 <v7a1jh$27tk0$2@dont-email.me>
 <317d523abb1626eae938f77d68833a2ff825cdb6@i2pn2.org>
 <v7a2je$28b88$1@dont-email.me>
 <faac34dead2e28260ea72a819f37dbd4d8d64e58@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 06:04:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="59b16eacfb44a5409827c0dee7d881bf";
	logging-data="2374756"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1909qJ38VR0H1I8b7/pRNg+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Zn5wJqSbcCZKyOzXhdDzyFKTP8k=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <faac34dead2e28260ea72a819f37dbd4d8d64e58@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 11658

On 7/17/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/17/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/17/2024 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/17/24 11:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========