Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new
 basis --- infallibly correct
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 16:04:10 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <vgom8r$3vue8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me>
 <4b24331953934da921cb7547b6ee2058ac9e7254@i2pn2.org>
 <vgmb06$3e37h$1@dont-email.me>
 <2a5107f331836f388ad259bf310311a393c00602@i2pn2.org>
 <vgnsho$3qq7s$2@dont-email.me> <vgo157$n00$1@news.muc.de>
 <vgo4ia$3sfle$1@dont-email.me> <vgo7ri$30iv$1@news.muc.de>
 <vgo89i$3t6n8$1@dont-email.me> <vgoand$2464$1@news.muc.de>
 <vgobg7$3tnrn$2@dont-email.me> <vgodcf$kll$1@news.muc.de>
 <vgoed9$3ucjr$1@dont-email.me> <vgoi51$kll$2@news.muc.de>
 <vgojp1$3v611$1@dont-email.me> <vgol50$kll$3@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2024 23:04:11 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="529658128fc1f19cc0ff32f79f31d785";
	logging-data="4192712"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/xajVcqWWcLvAXm2Bn6+sF"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bzTfIDksYLhnP5POcwV3Mj7+QBg=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241109-4, 11/9/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vgol50$kll$3@news.muc.de>

On 11/9/2024 3:45 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/9/2024 2:53 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/9/2024 1:32 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> [ .... ]
> 
>>>> The way that sound deductive inference is defined
>>>> to work is that they must be identical.
> 
>>> Whatever "sound deductive inference" means.  If you are right, then
>>> "sound deductive inference" is incoherent garbage.
> 
>> *Validity and Soundness*
>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
>> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
>> premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
>> to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said
>> to be invalid.
> 
>> A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is
>> both valid, and all of its premises are actually
>> true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.
>> https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
> 
>> Thus your ignorance and not mine.
> 
> No.  I suspected you were using the phrase as a sort of trademark for one
> of your own fancies, like you've done in the past with other phrases.
> Seeing how you actually mean what those words mean, then you are simply
> wrong again, as so often.
> 

That you don't even know what deductive inference is
provides zero evidence that it is not that actual
foundation of mathematical logic.

 >>> "sound deductive inference" is incoherent garbage.
Is a very stupid tings to say.

>>>> A conclusion IS ONLY true when applying truth
>>>> preserving operations to true premises.
> 
>>> I'm not sure what that adds to the argument.
> 
>> It is already specified that a conclusion can only be
>> true when truth preserving operations are applied to
>> expressions of language known to be true.
> 
>> That Gödel's proof didn't understand that this <is>
>> the actual foundation of mathematical logic is his
>> mistake.
> 
> You're lying by lack of expertise, again.  Gödel understood mathematical
> logic full well (indeed, played a significant part in its development),

He utterly failed to understand that his understanding
of provable in meta-math cannot mean true in PA unless
also provable in PA according to the deductive inference
foundation of all logic.

> and he made no mistakes in his proof.  Had he done so, they would have
> been identified by other mathematicians by now.
> 

That other people shared his lack of understanding
is no evidence that it is not a lack of understanding.

>> Unprovable in PA has always meant untrue in PA when
>> viewed within the deductive inference foundation of
>> mathematical logic.
> 
> Yet another lie by lack of expertise. 

Truth is not any majority rule.
That everyone else got this wrong
is not my mistake.

>  Unprovable and untrue have been
> proven to be different things, whether in the system of counting numbers
> or anything else containing it. 

Generically epistemology always requires provability.
Mathematical knowledge is not allowed to diverge from
the way that knowledge itself generically works.

>  Whatever you might mean by "the
> deductive inference foundation of mathematical logic" - is that another
> one of your "trademarks"?
> 

Do you think that mathematical logic just popped
into existence fully formed out of no where?

All coherent knowledge fits into an inheritance hierarchy
knowledge ontology. A non fit means incoherence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

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


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