Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 07:58:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 241
Message-ID: <v7b3hn$2e2aq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <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>
 <v7a495$28f34$1@dont-email.me>
 <aef056ccb53d299f5b9cf25b3ebc11e4a71e4159@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 14:58:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="59b16eacfb44a5409827c0dee7d881bf";
	logging-data="2558298"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ilsCecUrFSKbDhPSSDdzU"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xt0ZZqw58eFp7yufbB4JEgtmOzs=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <aef056ccb53d299f5b9cf25b3ebc11e4a71e4159@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 12427

On 7/18/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/18/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========