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 14:13:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <vq2aka$rl27$7@dont-email.me>
References: <vnh0sq$35mcm$1@dont-email.me> <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$4@dont-email.me> <vq1t54$qaok$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq1ve8$r6p7$3@dont-email.me> <vq20v3$rl27$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq22ek$r6p7$5@dont-email.me> <vq22s1$rl27$2@dont-email.me>
 <vq239p$ru20$2@dont-email.me> <vq23gq$rl27$3@dont-email.me>
 <vq23lp$ru20$4@dont-email.me> <vq23um$rl27$4@dont-email.me>
 <vq26ui$ru20$6@dont-email.me> <vq27k6$rl27$5@dont-email.me>
 <vq29mj$t7sh$1@dont-email.me> <vq2a4b$rl27$6@dont-email.me>
 <vq2ahm$t7sh$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2025 20:13:15 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="532f9ff796323674ebd2d76d6a96062e";
	logging-data="906311"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19KQh81hz5qkW7tp6PG8q/o"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:37IRP81WWynoKMfsNT0UtysTxJc=
In-Reply-To: <vq2ahm$t7sh$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5576

On 3/2/2025 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/2/2025 1:04 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/2/2025 1:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/2/2025 12:22 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/2025 1:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/2025 11:19 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/2/2025 12:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/2/2025 11:11 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2025 12:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2025 11:00 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2025 11:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2025 10:28 AM, dbush wrote:>>> So how does changing 
>>>>>>>>>>> the definition of truth prevent systems from
>>>>>>>>>>>> existing that contain true statements that have *only* an 
>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite connection to their truthmaker?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> how actual truth has always worked*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If expression X has a connection to a truth-maker then
>>>>>>>>>>> X is true otherwise X is untrue, yet possibly not false.
>>>>>>>>>>> It does not matter what kind of connection this is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You didn't answer the question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure I did
>>>>>>>>>  >> It does not matter what kind of connection this is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It does not matter whether the connection is infinite
>>>>>>>>> or not so STFU about it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dishonest dodge.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You stated that your definition of truth prevents systems from 
>>>>>>>> existing that contain true statements that have *only* an 
>>>>>>>> infinite connection to their truthmaker.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So how does that happen?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I never said anything like that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes you did:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/1/2025 11:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>  > Incompleteness cannot possibly exist when true means
>>>>>>  > has a truth-maker and untrue means has no truth-maker
>>>>>>  > and false mean ~X has a truth-maker.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your paraphrase of that was terribly incorrect.
>>>>> Has a truth-maker has always been the only correct
>>>>> way to determine True(x) superseding and replacing
>>>>> the ill-formed notion of provability.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I merely substituted the term "incompleteness" with it's official 
>>>> definition.  That you don't understand that definition is not a 
>>>> rebuttal.
>>>>
>>>> That you attempted to change the idea of "provability" doesn't 
>>>> change the fact that "incompleteness" still refers to the original 
>>>> idea of "provability".
>>>>
>>>> A system is incomplete if it contains one or more true statements 
>>>> that contain *only* an infinite connection to their truthmakers.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't change despite your idea of "truth", so incompleteness 
>>>> still exists.
>>>
>>> One can define a system of arithmetic that does not allow
>>> summing the integers 5 and 3. Such a system would be
>>> incomplete as an artificial contrivance.
>>>
>>> The notions of undecidability and incompleteness are this
>>> same sort of artificial contrivance.
>>>
>>
>> That's not what incompleteness means.
>>
>> For example, Robinson arithmetic is incomplete because the true 
>> statement "no number is equal to its successor" has *only* an infinite 
>> connection to its truthmaker.
>>
> 
> That is a ridiculously stupid thing to say and you know it.
> I may not be alive in a month. Quit f-cking around with
> my life's work.
> 

That you don't know the definition of the terms you're using is not a 
rebuttal.