Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology
 providing situational context.
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 15:37:40 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <vrprel$35a4m$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vr1shq$1qopn$1@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>
 <674e15b27aee55659e2925766cb6bb2b94fbb36d@i2pn2.org>
 <vrkh30$29m93$1@dont-email.me> <vrkq98$2h2aq$2@dont-email.me>
 <vrm927$3tmbh$1@dont-email.me> <vrmjas$5bpl$2@dont-email.me>
 <a3f359deabfaa7ae55c6c6f29fd01f14ab3d0119@i2pn2.org>
 <vrn6r7$md49$2@dont-email.me>
 <468e70a19f02c02766665fd0c1c1482eb6daac36@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 21:37:41 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f92c4786d2cda46e6b9083b2e30acd51";
	logging-data="3319958"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/WLxNG6/mqMqk5HwXXb4O4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mEiu6U8KngOjJBkvIBZM6r3x20Y=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250323-4, 3/23/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <468e70a19f02c02766665fd0c1c1482eb6daac36@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6054

On 3/22/2025 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/22/25 4:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/22/2025 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/22/25 11:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2025 7:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-03-21 22:47:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/21/2025 3:10 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/03/2025 11:48, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/21/25 5:33 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fortunately, to date inconsistency has tended to surface only 
>>>>>>>>> in corner cases like the Halting Problem, but Gödel's Hobgoblin 
>>>>>>>>> hovers over mathematics to this day.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Godel didn't prove that Mathematics wasn't consistent. He proved 
>>>>>>>> that it couldn't be proved to BE consistant within itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I rather overstated the case. Sorry about that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or we could simply define the rules for constructing a
>>>>>> formal system such that inconsistency cannot exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is possible. An example is Horn clauses, which is the theory 
>>>>> behind
>>>>> Prolog. If the logic has no negation operator there is no 
>>>>> posiibility to
>>>>> express an inconsistency. But even then the question whether there 
>>>>> is an
>>>>> unprovable sentence is problematic.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The body of human general knowledge that can be expressed
>>>> in language cannot possibly have any unprovable expressions
>>>> when truth preserving operations are the only category of
>>>> inference steps allowed.
>>>
>>> So, your logic doesn't allow us to express the Goldbach conjecture in 
>>> it?
>>>
>>> We can't express the logic of Turing Machines?
>>>
>>
>> The body of general knowledge that can be expressed in
>> language (is the actual body of general knowledge that
>> can be expressed in language) thus includes every tiny
>> detail about the Goldbach conjecture.
> 
> Right, but knowing all the details doesn't get us the answer, we KNOW 
> all the details that define the problem, we just can't test every number 
> to see if it holds.
> 

Part of the set of all general knowledge that can be
expressed using language is all of the details of
unsolved problems. It will know that no one knows
whether the Goldbach conjecture is true.

>>
>> I never defined "general" knowledge thus your critique
>> is apt. I had to make the set of basic facts finite
>> that is why I limited them to general knowledge.
>>
> 
> And either those define the basis of the Natural Numbers, at which point 
> the various theorem will hold, or you don't at which point your
> 

How do you say:
"I was going to go to the store to buy some vanilla
ice cream but they only had chocolate so I bought
a slice of Pizza instead" in arithmetic?

>> What it does not have is a set of truth preserving
>> operations from basic facts to a truth value of TRUE.
>> Is the Goldbach Conjecture known to be True? No.
> 
> But the question is NOT "is it KNOWN to be True?" but "is it True?"
> 

Then the answer is "no one knows".
The answer to the question: "What time is it (yes or no)?"
is that question is rejected as incorrect.

> Thus, you demonstrate that your whole argument is based on the FRAUD of 
> a STRAWMAN, and that you are just too stupid to understand the 
> difference between TRUTH and KNOWLEDGE.
> 

I don't think that you are too stupid to know that you are lying.
You are certainly not stupid.


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