Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology providing situational context.
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 13:56:42 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <vrm8hq$3t7m4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vr1shq$1qopn$1@dont-email.me> <vr2qmt$2ij53$1@dont-email.me> <vr2r34$2d3ah$7@dont-email.me> <vr2tti$2kq04$3@dont-email.me> <vr3u4l$3idjs$2@dont-email.me> <vr4kkr$48ff$2@dont-email.me> <7f68c434c15abfc9d4b645992344f0e851f031a3@i2pn2.org> <vr4t3e$bkso$5@dont-email.me> <vr50bg$ed3o$5@dont-email.me> <vr5abg$m5ov$6@dont-email.me> <8ea8c8f1c661d0f2eef855af9b4c171d4f574826@i2pn2.org> <vr6po4$1udpn$7@dont-email.me> <4965dcbb84fc29c9ba9d3cea39b59a8608bfeb66@i2pn2.org> <vr7v51$2u81k$3@dont-email.me> <7db5f56a38a6b6eda2b63acc2568f5dedcc55efd@i2pn2.org> <vr9fp6$bv13$5@dont-email.me> <vrbrkd$2ii4j$1@dont-email.me> <vrbss5$2j07c$1@dont-email.me> <2dd0fa97e2387ba4bca36b40ca16925933b35d9a@i2pn2.org> <vrfe7q$1oabl$1@dont-email.me> <0e92642bf4519e50ba48d51b52d17749c6e19664@i2pn2.org> <vri3va$3egq$1@dont-email.me> <9495b0ea31b3c2559cf9515bfabe071d48cc9d39@i2pn2.org> <vrinjq$kefg$2@dont-email.me> <vrj702$14v65$1@dont-email.me> <vrjboo$17u8e$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 12:56:43 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="108da026650ee63488561e95f19c1934";
	logging-data="4103876"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tQyicSCiE1eF4RWaGpHNZ"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SkfncZdK/vF3Ym4B0kBUL10M3P4=
Bytes: 2956

On 2025-03-21 09:33:12 +0000, Richard Heathfield said:

> On 21/03/2025 08:11, Mikko wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> Another part of human knowledge is that there are fools that try to
>> argue against proven theorems.
> 
> Well, if it ain't proven it ain't yet a theorem. But is that enough?
> 
> The background to the work of Church, Turing, Gödel and the like is 
> Hilbert's second problem: "The compatibility of the arithmetical 
> axioms", and the background to /that/ problem is that in the late 19th 
> century mathematicians were occasionally coming up with proofs of X, 
> only to discover in the literature that not-X had already been proved. 
> The question then was which proof had the bug?
> 
> But what if they were /both/ right? It was an obvious worry, and so 
> arose the great question: is mathematics consistent?
> 
> And Gödel proved not only that it isn't, but that it can't be.

No, Gödel's proofs are about consistent theories. Whether mathematics and
in particular elementary arithmetic is consistent remained undetermined.

-- 
Mikko