| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v7naae$120r5$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!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: Analytic Truth-makers Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 23:07:42 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 257 Message-ID: <v7naae$120r5$1@dont-email.me> References: <v7m26d$nrr4$1@dont-email.me> <e41a2d324173031e1fe47acc0fd69b94b7aba55e@i2pn2.org> <v7msg0$sepk$1@dont-email.me> <3fb77583036a3c8b0db4b77610fb4bf4214c9c23@i2pn2.org> <v7much$sepk$2@dont-email.me> <9577ce80fd6c8a3d5dc37b880ce35a4d10d12a0e@i2pn2.org> <v7n3ho$t590$1@dont-email.me> <7d9b88425623e1166e358f1bce4c3a2767c36da0@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 06:07:43 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c53d2de4672c698529f342dcfedcfa3a"; logging-data="1114981"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/PrPJksDlYdiWLvl3wakQM" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:sgWIa0r3SsK7PFlrgpYtuKkuN2Y= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <7d9b88425623e1166e358f1bce4c3a2767c36da0@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 10323 On 7/22/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/22/24 10:12 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/22/2024 8:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 7/22/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/22/2024 7:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 7/22/24 8:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/22/2024 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/22/24 12:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> I have focused on analytic truth-makers where an expression >>>>>>>> of language x is shown to be true in language L by a sequence >>>>>>>> of truth preserving operations from the semantic meaning of x >>>>>>>> in L to x in L. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In rare cases such as the Goldbach conjecture this may >>>>>>>> require an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations >>>>>>>> thus making analytic knowledge a subset of analytic truth. >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are cases where there is no finite or infinite sequence >>>>>>>> of truth preserving operations to x or ~x in L because x is >>>>>>>> self- contradictory in L. In this case x is not a >>>>>>>> truth-bearer in L. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, now you ADMIT that Formal Logical systems can be >>>>>>> "incomplete" because there exist analytic truths in them that >>>>>>> can not be proven with an actual formal proof (which, by >>>>>>> definition, must be finite). >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *No stupid I have never been saying anything like that* If g and >>>>>> ~g is not provable in PA then g is not a truth-bearer in PA. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What makes it different fron Goldbach's conjecture? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You are just caught in your own lies. >>>>> >>>>> YOU ADMITTED that statements, like Goldbach's conjecture, might be >>>>> true based on being only established by an infinite series of >>>>> truth preserving operations. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You seem to be too stupid about this too. You are too stupid to grasp >>>> the idea of true and unknowable. >>>> >>>> In any case you are not too stupid to know that every expression that >>>> requires an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations would >>>> not be true in any formal system. >>> >>> So, is Goldbach'c conjecture possibly true in the formal system of >>> Mathematics, even if it can't be proven? >>> >> >> No. If it requires an infinite sequence of truth preserving >> operations it is not true in any system requiring a finite >> sequence. > > > So you LIED when you said Goldbach's conjuecture could bve actually TRUE > even if it could only be established to be true by an infinite sequence > of truth preserving operations. > That you stupidly screw up the meaning of what I said in your own head is your stupidity and not my dishonesty. > Remember, you said: > >> In rare cases such as the Goldbach conjecture this may require an >> infinite sequence of truth preserving operations thus making analytic >> knowledge a subset of analytic truth. > > Or are statements that are analytic truth not always true statements? > You never did have a clue of what I meant by that. I still mean the same thing. Some analytic truth is unknown. >> >>> If so, why can't Godel's G be? >>> >> >> Gödel's G is true in MM. > > And in PA, as proven, > That is not the way it works. Truth-makers cannot cross system boundaries. > YOu are just showing your ignorance. > >> >>>> >>>>> In PA, G (not g, that is the variable) is shown to be TRUE, but >>>>> only estblished by an infinite series of truth preserving >>>>> operations, that we can show exist by a proof in MM. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No stupid that is not it. A finite sequence of truth preserving >>>> operations in MM proves that G is true in MM. Some people use lower >>>> case g. >>> >>> But the rules of construction of MM prove that statements matching >>> certain conditions that are proven in MM are also true in PA. >>> >> >> That is merely a false assumption. > > So, how can the fact that it is shown that no number CAN satisfy the > relationship not make it true that no number does satisfy the relationship? > When what-ever xyz and ~xyz cannot be proved in abc then xyz is not a truth-bearer in abc. > You seem to have an error in your logic? > You seem to be a sheep mindlessly accepting the incoherent received view. >> >>> And G meets that requirements. (note g is the number, not the statement) >>> >>> We can show in MM, that no natural number g CAN satisfy that >>> relationship, because we know of some additional properties of that >>> relationship from our knowledge in MM that still apply in PA. >>> >>> Thus, Godel PROVED that G is true in PA as well as in MM. >>> >> >> That is merely a false assumption. Truth-makers cannot cross system >> boundaries. > > It didn't need to. The truth-makers are the fact that no number will > satisfy that relationship. That is just an established fact. > > We just got a short cut to allow us to do it faster in MM > There must be a contiguous sequence of truth preserving operations in the same language in the same system from the meaning of the expression in the language to the expression in the language of the system else the expression is untrue in the system. All knowledge is computable on the basis of axioms. > or, do you thing that two system that share the same rules of arithmetic > could have x+y = 5 in one systen but = 6 in the other? > One system of arithmetic and another system of sorting eggs have no common communication basis. >> >>> He also PROVED that there can't be a proof in PA for it. >>> >>>> >>>> Here is the convoluted mess that Gödel uses >>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/G%C3%B6del_Sentence(1931).pdf >>> >>> And your inability to understand it doesn't make it wrong. >>> >> >> It is only his false conclusion that makes him wrong. >> His false conclusion is anchored in an incorrect ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========