Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new
 basis --- infallibly correct
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 14:34:59 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d1ac0b6a49844f375dff901bf78257f14bfe8239@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vglhij$39mg2$1@dont-email.me>
 <8c2cbbe343934d211ad8c820c963702e70351a27@i2pn2.org>
 <vglk31$3a6hn$1@dont-email.me>
 <19d0838dd000cc4f67c8c64ac6005d5405cf2bd6@i2pn2.org>
 <vglv58$3bn2s$3@dont-email.me>
 <cd6cbe7d70fcc282da94aea2107e48ad4b3f44b5@i2pn2.org>
 <vgm79v$3d9gu$1@dont-email.me>
 <4b24331953934da921cb7547b6ee2058ac9e7254@i2pn2.org>
 <vgmb06$3e37h$1@dont-email.me>
 <2a5107f331836f388ad259bf310311a393c00602@i2pn2.org>
 <vgnsho$3qq7s$2@dont-email.me> <vgo157$n00$1@news.muc.de>
 <vgo4ia$3sfle$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 19:34:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1715777"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vgo4ia$3sfle$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3343
Lines: 53

On 11/9/24 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/9/2024 10:03 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/9/2024 5:01 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/8/24 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That formal systems that only apply truth preserving 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to expressions of their formal language that have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulated to be true cannot possibly be undecidable is proven
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be over-your-head on the basis that you have no actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning as a rebuttal.
>>>> Gödel showed otherwise.
>>
>>> That is counter-factual within my precise specification.
>>
>> That's untrue - you don't have a precise specification.  And even if you
>> did, Gödel's theorem would still hold.
>>
>>> When truth is only derived by starting with
>>> truth and applying truth preserving operations
>>> then unprovable in PA becomes untrue in PA.
>>
>> No.  Unprovable will remain.
>>
> 
> *Like I said you don't pay f-cking attention*
> *Like I said you don't pay f-cking attention*
> *Like I said you don't pay f-cking attention*



> 
> Unprovable(L,x) means Untrue(L,x)
> Unprovable(L,~x) means Unfalse(L,x)
> ~True(L,x) ^ ~True(L, ~x) means ~Truth-Bearer(L,x)
> 
>>> Everyone is so sure that whatever I say must be wrong
>>> that they don't pay any f-cking attention to what I say.
>>> The above paragraph <is> infallibly correct.
>>
>> Garbage.  When you spout objectively wrong stuff, people don't need to
>> look at the details to know it's wrong.  Wrong is wrong.  Gödel's theorem
>> is just as correct as 2 + 2 = 4 is.
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>> -- 
>>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>
> 
>