Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception ---
 philosophy of logic -- Newspeak
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2025 14:01:09 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <vpvlhl$b70b$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vnh0sq$35mcm$1@dont-email.me>
 <7e3e9d35d880cfcad12f505dfb39c5650cdd249e@i2pn2.org>
 <vpfo75$js1o$1@dont-email.me>
 <f3c8332f4b42f8e085d4d4dac017ccc8a0dc5a5f@i2pn2.org>
 <vpgt6o$tiun$1@dont-email.me>
 <3cf165ef9793e844dc9d5db82aecbc47f9545367@i2pn2.org>
 <vpiubu$1fvqe$1@dont-email.me>
 <080bf2b1c322247548c6ec61c9f054359062ccd4@i2pn2.org>
 <vpj8c9$1hivf$3@dont-email.me>
 <6fc61a762b56308f9919993f29ba3e77f7ba84c7@i2pn2.org>
 <vpl2q5$23vks$6@dont-email.me>
 <41ca355a1f535e767e17d3f4df3d404eb1e61cef@i2pn2.org>
 <vplr1t$28j3a$2@dont-email.me> <vps1n5$3k4j1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vptbtg$3rlov$2@dont-email.me>
 <f2e04c396dbde6131f5c9cc0b7ff7dfbe887a983@i2pn2.org>
 <vptjsf$3st19$7@dont-email.me>
 <e07a3926bb1c5279d87403b1246659c8c28e8b09@i2pn2.org>
 <vpv7jo$8sdm$2@dont-email.me>
 <82c622bcbeb9712d3939e918a3c43ca5d9956b5b@i2pn2.org>
 <vpvhtd$asl2$1@dont-email.me> <vpviqt$b70b$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpvjdv$asl2$2@dont-email.me> <vpvkah$b70a$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpvlbl$bjn9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2025 20:01:10 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="346f6112cd21f9da9d3dd26c385a1227";
	logging-data="367627"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19UaUeQ8Ot7CrHXtqacARwS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jjPRkofud4GRAATn6SriEPYR9fU=
In-Reply-To: <vpvlbl$bjn9$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4586

On 3/1/2025 1:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/1/2025 12:40 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/1/2025 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2025 12:14 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/2025 12:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When we try the different options that Philosophy of Logic
>>>>> allows and thus do not assume that the fallible humans
>>>>> that created modern logic were infallible and all knowing
>>>>> and thus the rules of logic that they derived are not the
>>>>> infallible word-of-God then
>>>>>
>>>>> we can easily get rid of both undecidability and incompleteness
>>>>> by retaining the original provable(common) is the truth-maker
>>>>> for true(common).
>>>>>
>>>>> Wittgenstein also knew this: bottom of page 6
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>>>> publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>
>>>>> undecidability and incompleteness are merely an artifact
>>>>> of overriding provable(common) and True(common) with
>>>>> incompatible idiomatic term-of-the-art meanings.
>>>>>
>>>>> *This is the same sort of idea as newspeak*
>>>>> Newspeak, which is a controlled language of simplified
>>>>> grammar and limited vocabulary designed to limit a person's
>>>>> ability for critical thinking.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You say that a statement is "provable" if it contains a link to a 
>>>> truthmaker.
>>>>
>>>> So what name would you give to a statement where the only connection 
>>>> to its truthmaker is infinite?
>>>
>>> Finally a good question that is not mere trolling.
>>> Every truth requires a truth-maker.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>>> Also requires a truth-maker otherwise it is impossibly true.
>>> This is not an empirical truth where we can look under
>>> a specific rock and find the answer.
>>>
>>> What are the possible ways to find the answer?
>>> (a) Some finite sequence of steps
>>> (b) Some infinite sequence of steps
>>>
>>> else untrue.
>>>
>>
>> You're saying every true statement has a truthmaker.  Fine.
>>
>> What name would you give to a statement where the only connection to 
>> its truthmaker is infinite?
> 
> The generic use of the term proof(common) meaning
> anything at all the shows X is definitely true.
> 
> Thus not the idiomatic term-of-the-art meaning
> of proof(math) that is much narrower and more
> restrictive.
> 

Dishonest dodge.

What name would you give to a statement where the only connection to
its truthmaker is infinite?