Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception ---
 Relations between finite strings
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2025 19:48:26 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <vq0ddb$f3k3$8@dont-email.me>
References: <vnh0sq$35mcm$1@dont-email.me> <vpfo75$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>
 <6320ec8cdc4ab9fc06e5001c0b4069132ce1af58@i2pn2.org>
 <vpn8q6$2jkdj$2@dont-email.me>
 <fde9d3850bbfcfbea9597d90419a0e0a1d8c5552@i2pn2.org>
 <vpop70$2vaf3$1@dont-email.me>
 <bd7d954830f64ed5b718b23323fce66b33b4b89a@i2pn2.org>
 <vppt4h$34vin$1@dont-email.me>
 <118757d760bdecf247749f20c8c9b15518be3d33@i2pn2.org>
 <vprcnm$3gqpb$2@dont-email.me>
 <bc0ba48c5fe3b53a9a83a0f5c2ca76882cdf374a@i2pn2.org>
 <vptj1t$3st19$6@dont-email.me>
 <56fcc6eb9839729ce5cfee96343d6fab7d7a4811@i2pn2.org>
 <vpvssq$bjn9$13@dont-email.me>
 <9e634170122aa9cc5a0944f3da7ab51d49ddc429@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2025 02:48:27 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a4c634d78a3c572e27d924fefebd45f";
	logging-data="495235"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18g62vD977IZFhIoehucBJs"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ajp7BPddCCDUE3xodB7ZjrhGXx8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <9e634170122aa9cc5a0944f3da7ab51d49ddc429@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250301-6, 3/1/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 5093

On 3/1/2025 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/1/25 4:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/1/2025 6:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/28/25 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/2025 8:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/27/25 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/27/2025 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/27/25 9:33 AM, olcott wrote:>>
>>>>>>>> Yes logic is broken when it does not require a truth-maker
>>>>>>>> for every truth. It is also broken when its idiomatic meaning
>>>>>>>> of the term "provable" diverges from the meaning of the term
>>>>>>>> truth-maker. That every truth must have a truth-maker is outside
>>>>>>>> the scope of what you understand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it does, it just you don't seem to understand what a truth 
>>>>>>> makee is?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where was a statement without a truth-maker used?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Logic remains clueless about the philosophical
>>>>>> notion of truth makers and truth bearers and this is
>>>>>> why logic gets these things incorrectly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you remain clueless about the notion of Logic and its rules.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only because logic defines "True" in a way that goes against the
>>>> way that True really works is it impossible to define a truth
>>>> predicate in logic.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The biggest mistake that logic makes is failing to understand
>>>> that an expression can only be true when it has a truth bearer.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't, it just allows the truth bearer to be an infinite 
>>> number of steps away from the statement.
>>>
>>
>> When we don't make a screwy term-of-the-art meaning
>> of provable(math) that diverges from provable(common)
>> {whatever the Hell makes X true} then incompleteness(math)
>> ceases to exist.
>>
> 
> What is divergent?
> 
> Proveable(common) is *NOT* "whatever make X true", but what SHOWS X to 
> be true, and to show something requires the showing to be a finite 
> arguement, as we can't "see" an infinite one.
> 
> So, your problem is just you don't understand the meaning of the words 
> you are using.

I had to over simplify it so that you could get the gist of the idea.

All of these decades since Carnap and Quine not one person that
I know of has ever understood that the essence of analytic truth
is simply relations between finite strings.

Analytic knowledge is always a finite sequence of relations
between finite strings. Analytic truth can include infinite
sequences of relations between finite strings.

The closest existing term is the term "proof". Even the finite
sequence of finite strings is a notion much broader than any
conventional notion of "proof" yet there are no existing terms
that encompass this meaning.




-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer