Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 23:09:12 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 124
Message-ID: <v7pup8$1ji5b$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v7m26d$nrr4$1@dont-email.me>
 <e41a2d324173031e1fe47acc0fd69b94b7aba55e@i2pn2.org>
 <v7msg0$sepk$1@dont-email.me>
 <3fb77583036a3c8b0db4b77610fb4bf4214c9c23@i2pn2.org>
 <MPG.4109e1eeb98e7f829896fe@reader.eternal-september.org>
 <v7olj0$19f9b$1@dont-email.me>
 <5406ed035cafb6c47d3b89e92dac58f0b9c67fe8@i2pn2.org>
 <v7pprm$1iqdm$1@dont-email.me>
 <c6614a4ab791677959ecc8cfc21bac9ae1811678@i2pn2.org>
 <v7prni$1j3e7$1@dont-email.me>
 <b969998e09a55fb3ab05b2a19fd28a36ca56ecc7@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 06:09:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="16ed067bd5cc70aacf71dd1f4de1f69e";
	logging-data="1689771"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/nDaLV0JLPRt+ubtvTfuCL"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ym36uxqSK0sI5GZqw5R6SHu2l+w=
In-Reply-To: <b969998e09a55fb3ab05b2a19fd28a36ca56ecc7@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6230

On 7/23/2024 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/23/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/23/2024 10:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/23/24 10:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/23/2024 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/23/24 12:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/23/2024 9:51 AM, Wasell wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:17:15 -0400, in article
>>>>>>> <3fb77583036a3c8b0db4b77610fb4bf4214c9c23@i2pn2.org>, Richard 
>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/22/24 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *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?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think a better example might be Goodstein's theorem [1].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * It is expressible in the same language as PA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * It is neither provable, nor disprovable, in PA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * We know that it is true in the standard model of arithmetic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * We know that it is false in some (necessarily non-standard) models
>>>>>>>    of arithmetic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * It was discovered and proved long before it was shown to be
>>>>>>>    undecidable in PA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only drawback is that the theorem is somewhat more complicated
>>>>>>> than Goldbach's conjecture -- not a lot, but a bit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodstein%27s_theorem>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am establishing a new meaning for
>>>>>> {true on the basis of meaning expressed in language}
>>>>>> Formerly known as {analytic truth}.
>>>>>> This makes True(L,x) computable and definable.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may say that, but you then refuse to do the work to actually do 
>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that if you try to redefine the foundation, you need 
>>>>> to build the whole building all over again, but you just don't 
>>>>> understand what you need to do that.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> L is the language of a formal mathematical system.
>>>>>> x is an expression of that language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we understand that True(L,x) means that there is a finite
>>>>>> sequence of truth preserving operations in L from the semantic
>>>>>> meaning of x to x in L, then mathematical incompleteness is 
>>>>>> abolished.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except you just defined that this isn't true, as you admit that the 
>>>>> Goldbach conjecgture COULD be an analytic truth even if it doesn't 
>>>>> have a finte sequence of truth perserving operations, 
>>>>
>>>> I redefined analytic truth to account for that. Things
>>>> like the Goldbach conjecture are in the different class
>>>> of currently unknowable.
>>>
>>> In other words, NOTHING you are talking about apply to the logic that 
>>> anyone else is using.
>>>
>>> Note, Godel's G can't be put into that category, as it is KNOWN to be 
>>> true in PA, because of a proof in MM 
>>
>> You ONLY construe it to be true in PA because that is
>> the answer that you memorized.
> 
> No, it is True in PA, because it is LITERALLY True by the words it uses.
> 
>>
>> When you understand that true requires a sequence of
>> truth preserving operations and they do not exist in
>> PA then it is not true in PA.
> 
> But they DO exist in PA, I guess you just don't understand how math works.
> 
> The sequence of steps is:
> 
> Check the number 0 to see if it satisfies the PRR. Answer = No.
> Check the number 1 to see if it satisfies the PRR. Answer = No.
> Check the number 2 to see if it satisfies the PRR. Answer = No.
> 
> keep repeating counting up through all the Natural Numbers.
>  From the trick in MM, we can see that the math in PA will say no to all 
> of them.
> 
> Thus, after an infinite number of steps of truth preserving operations, 
> we reach the conclusion that NO natural numbers actually exist that meet 
> that PRR, just like G claimed, so it is correct.
> 

The lack of a proof means untruth.

>>
>> Memorizing a view and insisting that this view must
>> be correct because that is what you memorized is what
>> mindless robots would do.
>>
> 
> And making up an idea and refusing to test it or compare it to facts, 
> like you do just shows that you are just an ingorant pathological lying 
> idiot who recklessly disregards the truth because you only beleive your 
> own lies.
> 
> Sorry, you are just proving you are unfit for logic. My guess is you are 
> going to be working out that infinite proof in Gehenna.
> 

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer