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 ---
 Ultimate Foundation of Truth
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2025 10:23:17 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 208
Message-ID: <vq1t54$qaok$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vnh0sq$35mcm$1@dont-email.me> <vpgt6o$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>
 <9c6309a46ca0fdf2ce98f50a09891e143d81ab90@i2pn2.org>
 <vpofp1$2qg88$1@dont-email.me>
 <b45af7804b64b9710e9ea63b1e9801141c8c52be@i2pn2.org>
 <vpopdm$2vaf3$2@dont-email.me>
 <0e0c21ec5ccaeec8f341a86ed64c7447c34d162b@i2pn2.org>
 <vpptsf$34vin$2@dont-email.me>
 <8638c66ecc1669437be5a141cfa358c8c6168cde@i2pn2.org>
 <vprcfr$3gqpb$1@dont-email.me>
 <f3d81048b6516b2adec13255c9a0dcf577e6bc49@i2pn2.org>
 <vptihj$3st19$5@dont-email.me>
 <f68172526d3a2f1c8880a03b01404446ef78ef05@i2pn2.org>
 <vq0bs4$f3k3$6@dont-email.me>
 <83cd07284fba793a0c2865dc5f6c21a9b9788a3e@i2pn2.org>
 <vq0nqj$kqua$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2025 16:23:17 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="532f9ff796323674ebd2d76d6a96062e";
	logging-data="862996"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19okA3knfR7MFK4YPNKARo/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DfhpBEdRaS1bFEEfaaZj47pTXpA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vq0nqj$kqua$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 10516

On 3/1/2025 11:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/1/2025 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/1/25 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2025 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/28/25 6:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/28/2025 8:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/27/25 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/27/2025 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/27/25 9:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/27/2025 6:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/25 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2025 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/25 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2025 10:03 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:34:47 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2025 6:18 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 12:40:04 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 12:15 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 24 Feb 2025 20:02:49 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/25 6:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/25 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/25 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Systems is semantically sound if every statement 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven is actually true by the systems semantics,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is very good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in other words, the system doesn't allow the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proving of a false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not too bad yet ignores that some 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions might not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have any truth value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which has nothing to do with "soundness".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When any system assumes that every expression is true 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or false and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is capable of encoding expressions that are neither 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS STUPIDLY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In honour of Gödel this is usually called "incomplete".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where "incomplete" has always been an idiom for stupid 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your understanding of logic is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is to say, stupidly wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The screwed up notion of "incomplete" is anchored in the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupid idea
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that {true in the system} is not required to be {provable 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are about a century behind on the foundations of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that can only be verified as 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of other expressions of language either has a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic connection
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truthmaker to these other expressions or IT IS SIMPLY NOT 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TRUE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I.e. its negation is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WTF is the truth value of the negation of nonsense?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Liar Paradox has ALWAYS simply been nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But we aren't negating "nonsense", we are negating the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual valid truth value out of the Truth Primative.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand that the DEFINITION of what a 
>>>>>>>>>>>> truth primative is requires that True(Nonsense) be false, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> not "nonsense".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   True("lkekngnkerkn") == false
>>>>>>>>>>> False("lkekngnkerkn") == false
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But ~True("lkekngnkerkn") == true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> so if we can define that lkekngnkerkn is ~True(lkekngnkerkn) 
>>>>>>>>>> then we have a problem.
>>>>>>>>>> f
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We are not defining gibberish as anything.
>>>>>>>>> Gibberish evaluates as ~True because it is gibberish.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But you are trying to define LP := !True(LP) as gibberish.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prolog already knows that it <is> gibberish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because, like you, Prolog can't handle the needed logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has an infinite cycle in the directed graph of its
>>>>>>> evaluation sequence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But infinite cycles are not prohibited in logic systems that 
>>>>>> support the properties of the Natural Numbers. The MUST allow them 
>>>>>> or you can't HAVE the Natural Numbers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See Page 3 for Prolog
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>>>>>> publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just shows your stupidity, thinking that all logic is just 
>>>>>> primitive, and not understanding what the Godel sentence actually 
>>>>>> is. Your mind seems to have blocked out the actual sentence 
>>>>>> presented earlier because you know you don't understand it, so you 
>>>>>> think it must be gibberisn, but it is you mind that is gibberish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You didn't give it the ACTUAL Godel sentence, just the simplified 
>>>>>> interpretation of it. The problem is that the actual Godel 
>>>>>> sentence can't be expressed in Prolog, as it uses 2nd order logic 
>>>>>> operations, which Prolog doesn't handle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, since your mind can't handle them either, you can't 
>>>>>> understand that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carefully study the Clocksin and Mellish on page 3 knucklehead.
>>>>> Read and reread the yellow highlighted text until you totally get it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, Neither G nor ~G are provable in F.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Provable(common)
>>> {shown to be definitely true by whatever means}
>>> is the only relevant notion of provable.
>>
>> And "Shown" requires finite.
>>
>> Please show me an infinite proof.
>>
>> Try to do it. That might be your task if Gehenna.
>>
>>>
>>> We could say that it is totally impossible for anyone
>>> to touch their own head by adding the requirement
>>> that they must touch their own head without ever
>>> touching their own head.
>>>
>>> Incompleteness(math) is this same sort of thing.
>>>
>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========