Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 18:39:34 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 70 Message-ID: References: <8c2cbbe343934d211ad8c820c963702e70351a27@i2pn2.org> <19d0838dd000cc4f67c8c64ac6005d5405cf2bd6@i2pn2.org> <4b24331953934da921cb7547b6ee2058ac9e7254@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2024 01:39:35 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="529658128fc1f19cc0ff32f79f31d785"; logging-data="3607793"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18B4Md75bxOdlQHK2UAqdl6" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:PDKqiDP4W4b0lcz0mCAj3yBR/cQ= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241108-10, 11/8/2024), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: <4b24331953934da921cb7547b6ee2058ac9e7254@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4598 On 11/8/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 11/8/24 6:36 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/8/2024 3:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 11/8/24 4:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 11/8/2024 12:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 11/8/24 1:08 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 11/8/2024 12:02 PM, Richard Damon 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, all you have done is shown that you don't undertstand what >>>>>>> you are talking about. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Godel PROVED that the FORMAL SYSTEM that his proof started in, is >>>>>>> unable to PROVE that the statement G, being "that no Natural >>>>>>> Number g, that satifies a particularly designed Primitive >>>>>>> Recursive Relationship" is true, but also shows (using the Meta- >>>>>>> Mathematics that derived the PRR for the original Formal System) >>>>>>> that no such number can exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The equivocation of switching formal systems from PA to meta-math. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, it just shows you don't understand how meta-systems work. >>>>> >>>> >>>> IT SHOWS THAT I KNOW IT IS STUPID TO >>>> CONSTRUE TRUE IN META-MATH AS TRUE IN PA. >>>> THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS IS STUPID IS YOUR ERROR. >>> >>> But, as I pointed out, the way Meta-Math is derived from PA, >> >> Meta-math PA. >> Meta-math PA. >> Meta-math PA. >> Meta-math PA. >> >> True in meta-math True in PA. >> True in meta-math True in PA. >> True in meta-math True in PA. >> True in meta-math True in PA. >> >> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" >> is only true because the inner sentence is bullshit gibberish. >> >> > > But MM has exactly the same axioms and rules as PA, so anything > established by that set of axioms and rules in MM is established in PA too. > > There are additional axioms in MM, but the rules are built specifically One single level of indirect reference CHANGES EVERYTHING. PA speaks PA. Meta-math speaks ABOUT PA. The liar paradox is nonsense gibberish except when applied to itself, then it becomes true. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer