Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!news.space.net!news.muc.de!.POSTED.news.muc.de!not-for-mail
From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 22:28:15 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: muc.de e.V.
Message-ID: <vgonlv$kll$4@news.muc.de>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me>   <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> <vgom8r$3vue8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 22:28:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.muc.de; posting-host="news.muc.de:2001:608:1000::2";
	logging-data="21173"; mail-complaints-to="news-admin@muc.de"
User-Agent: tin/2.6.3-20231224 ("Banff") (FreeBSD/14.1-RELEASE-p5 (amd64))
Bytes: 5051
Lines: 104

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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:

[ .... ]

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

You lied about it in your usual fashion, and I took your lies at face
value.

>>>>> 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 G=C3=B6del'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.  G=C3=B6del understood mathe=
matical
>> 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.

You're lying in your usual fashion, namely by lack of expertise.  It is
entirely your lack of understanding.  If G=C3=B6del's proof was not rigor=
ously
correct, his result would have been long discarded.  It is correct.

>> 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.

Liar.

>>> 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.=20

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

You're deluded.  "Everybody else" did not get this wrong.  You are
incapable of understanding the issues.

>> Unprovable and untrue have been proven to be different things, whether
>> in the system of counting numbers or anything else containing it.=20

> Generically epistemology always requires provability.

That's too many multi-syllabic words together for either of us to
understand any meaning from.

> Mathematical knowledge is not allowed to diverge from
> the way that knowledge itself generically works.

I don't know where you get that from.  Who precisely is determining what
mathematicians are allowed to do?  Epistemologists, perhaps?  Get real.

>> 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?

Of course not.  It has had a long history of development complete with
since discarded dead ends and the occasional triumph, like any other
branch of mathematics or science.

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

Again, a meaningless concatenation of too many multi-syllabic words.
Whatever it is, it's probably not true, and certainly has no relevance to
mathematics.

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

> --=20
> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--=20
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).