Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: dbush Newsgroups: sci.logic Subject: Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception --- philosophy of logic -- Newspeak Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2025 14:01:09 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 71 Message-ID: References: <7e3e9d35d880cfcad12f505dfb39c5650cdd249e@i2pn2.org> <3cf165ef9793e844dc9d5db82aecbc47f9545367@i2pn2.org> <080bf2b1c322247548c6ec61c9f054359062ccd4@i2pn2.org> <6fc61a762b56308f9919993f29ba3e77f7ba84c7@i2pn2.org> <41ca355a1f535e767e17d3f4df3d404eb1e61cef@i2pn2.org> <82c622bcbeb9712d3939e918a3c43ca5d9956b5b@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2025 20:01:10 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="346f6112cd21f9da9d3dd26c385a1227"; logging-data="367627"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19UaUeQ8Ot7CrHXtqacARwS" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:jjPRkofud4GRAATn6SriEPYR9fU= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4586 On 3/1/2025 1:57 PM, olcott wrote: > On 3/1/2025 12:40 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 3/1/2025 1:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/1/2025 12:14 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 3/1/2025 12:59 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> When we try the different options that Philosophy of Logic >>>>> allows and thus do not assume that the fallible humans >>>>> that created modern logic were infallible and all knowing >>>>> and thus the rules of logic that they derived are not the >>>>> infallible word-of-God then >>>>> >>>>> we can easily get rid of both undecidability and incompleteness >>>>> by retaining the original provable(common) is the truth-maker >>>>> for true(common). >>>>> >>>>> Wittgenstein also knew this: bottom of page 6 >>>>> >>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ >>>>> publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel >>>>> >>>>> undecidability and incompleteness are merely an artifact >>>>> of overriding provable(common) and True(common) with >>>>> incompatible idiomatic term-of-the-art meanings. >>>>> >>>>> *This is the same sort of idea as newspeak* >>>>> Newspeak, which is a controlled language of simplified >>>>> grammar and limited vocabulary designed to limit a person's >>>>> ability for critical thinking. >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak >>>>> >>>> >>>> You say that a statement is "provable" if it contains a link to a >>>> truthmaker. >>>> >>>> So what name would you give to a statement where the only connection >>>> to its truthmaker is infinite? >>> >>> Finally a good question that is not mere trolling. >>> Every truth requires a truth-maker. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture >>> Also requires a truth-maker otherwise it is impossibly true. >>> This is not an empirical truth where we can look under >>> a specific rock and find the answer. >>> >>> What are the possible ways to find the answer? >>> (a) Some finite sequence of steps >>> (b) Some infinite sequence of steps >>> >>> else untrue. >>> >> >> You're saying every true statement has a truthmaker.  Fine. >> >> What name would you give to a statement where the only connection to >> its truthmaker is infinite? > > The generic use of the term proof(common) meaning > anything at all the shows X is definitely true. > > Thus not the idiomatic term-of-the-art meaning > of proof(math) that is much narrower and more > restrictive. > Dishonest dodge. What name would you give to a statement where the only connection to its truthmaker is infinite?