Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 15:26:39 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <vgnnuf$3q3ma$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vfq4h9$1fo1n$1@dont-email.me> <vfqpi3$1iaob$4@dont-email.me> <vfqsng$1gikg$1@dont-email.me> <vfsadf$1urkc$1@dont-email.me> <vft4kp$23a0h$1@dont-email.me> <vfvo2o$2ln20$1@dont-email.me> <vg09p2$2kq69$1@dont-email.me> <vg0a9h$2op6r$1@dont-email.me> <fd8bf90393a5bcb10f7913da9081421637262590@i2pn2.org> <vg14nd$2t4b1$1@dont-email.me> <SGUUO.312650$kxD8.126005@fx11.iad> <vg16dl$2th77$1@dont-email.me> <vg2b6j$374jn$1@dont-email.me> <vg2gg1$37lpn$5@dont-email.me> <vg4onc$3ngof$1@dont-email.me> <vg4uem$3o3ca$1@dont-email.me> <vg7f7l$a1jf$1@dont-email.me> <vg8ulh$9stc$1@dont-email.me> <vgakbd$vlda$1@dont-email.me> <vgbm5r$sgg9$1@dont-email.me> <vgg6fh$2s61$1@news.muc.de> <vgg7tk$26klj$1@dont-email.me> <vggjtb$1f3u$1@news.muc.de> <vggund$2am72$1@dont-email.me> <vgkudf$1lrm$1@news.muc.de> <vgl78d$37h38$2@dont-email.me> <vgl9cm$6e3$1@news.muc.de> <vgl9uh$37h38$9@dont-email.me> <vglcnh$agb$1@news.muc.de> <vgldr3$38uph$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2024 14:26:39 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bef4aa5b19de5e8f79e84ee1079df64d";
	logging-data="4001482"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Y2ZIOoetJnfEhaclOp80D"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QfnJMpLAXvYk5MiMOFsMpCLkcAU=
Bytes: 3271

On 2024-11-08 16:21:55 +0000, olcott said:

> On 11/8/2024 10:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>> As I said, it's not a matter of "belief".  It's a matter of certain
>> knowledge stemming from having studied for and having a degree in maths.
> 
> You understand what the received view is.

But you don't.

> My view is inconsistent with the received view therefore
> (when one assumes that the received view is infallible)
> I must be wrong.

More omportantly, you have not presented enough of your view that
we could determine whether your view is internally consistent.

>> I reject what you say because it's objectively wrong.  Just as if you
>> said 2 + 2 = 5.
>> 
>>> What I said about is a semantic tautology just like
>>> 2 + 3 = 5. Formal systems are only incomplete when
>>> the term "incomplete" is a euphemism for the inability
>>> of formal systems to correctly determine the truth
>>> value of non-truth-bearers.
>> 
>> No.  You lack the expertise.
> 
> I know how the current systems work and I disagree
> that they are correct. This is not any lack of expertise.

You have not shown that you know and have often shown that you don't.
Your disagreement is just an opinion. You have not shown any reasron
why anyone else should disagree.

We believe in logic and arithmetic because nobody has ever observed
a situation where they give a false result from true assumptions.

-- 
Mikko