On 1/2/2023 2:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/2/23 3:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/2/2023 10:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/2/23 10:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/2023 8:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/23 9:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/2023 12:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/2/23 12:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/1/2023 11:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/23 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/23 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that you have an IQ anywhere near the top 1%
>>>>>>>>>>>> much less
>>>>>>>>>>>> than the 185 IQ of top 2 in a billion. I could easily
>>>>>>>>>>>> believe the top
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5%, most everyone here is in the top 5%.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter what you believe, as you have demonstrated
>>>>>>>>>>> that you don't understand what is actually Truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have not demonstrated any very significant understanding
>>>>>>>>>> of these
>>>>>>>>>> things. It does seem that you have demonstrated key
>>>>>>>>>> misunderstandings of
>>>>>>>>>> Tarski. I guy with a 2 in one billion IQ would not make these
>>>>>>>>>> mistakes.
>>>>>>>>>> A guy with a top 1% IQ might make these mistakes if they
>>>>>>>>>> barely skimmed
>>>>>>>>>> the material.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can see that the proof is only two pages long, not too
>>>>>>>>>> much to carefully study.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Tarski%20-%20The%20Concept%20of%20Truth%20in%20Formalized%20Languages.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First, you confuse Intelgence with Knowledge.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I have mentioned before, this is an area that I admit I
>>>>>>>>> haven't studied in great detail (but it seems I still
>>>>>>>>> understand some of the point better than you, which shows your
>>>>>>>>> lack of intelegence).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You claim Tarski bases his proof on the Liar needing a Truth
>>>>>>>>> Value.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In fact, a simple reading of the text shows that he is using
>>>>>>>>> the standard Proof by Contradiction to show that IF the "Thesis
>>>>>>>>> A" which resumes a definition of Truth was actually True, then
>>>>>>>>> we can prove that the Liar's Paradox is True.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since we know the Liar's Paradox is not a Truth Bearer, and
>>>>>>>>> thus not True, the Thesis can not be true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IF I find the time, I might put the effort to read the papers
>>>>>>>>> you have linked to and see if I can make some more detailed
>>>>>>>>> comments on them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My first guess is a few days effort would probably be
>>>>>>>>> sufficent, which compared to your decades, seems a reasonable
>>>>>>>>> ratio considering our comparative intelegence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finite Truth is all about showing that a truth maker semantic
>>>>>>>> connection exists. If exists then true else untrue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where are you getting the term "Finite Truth".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even a guy with a top 1% IQ would be able to figure out from our
>>>>>> prior
>>>>>> context that I must mean expressions of language that have finite
>>>>>> semantic connections to their truth maker.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which means you aren't talking about ANYTHING that anyone else we
>>>>> have been talking about would call "True", and thus meaningless for
>>>>> this conversation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The subset of expressions of language that have finite semantic
>>>> connections to their truth maker is not an entirely different subject
>>>> than the set of expressions of language having semantic connections
>>>> to their truth maker.
>>>>
>>>>> Limiting your definition of "True" to finite connections is the
>>>>> equivalent of limiting it to Provable, which has been shown (though
>>>>> you don't understand it) to leads either logic system that are
>>>>> constrained in what they can handle, or they become inconsistent.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. It leads to rejecting expressions of language that have
>>>> no possible connection to any truth maker. Prolog can already do this.
>>>
>>> Bo, it leads to rejecting expression of language that DO have a
>>> connection to a truth maker, because such a connect is infinite.
>>>
>>
>> You and I and the set of human knowledge can all see that
>> epistemological antinomies have no finite or infinite semantic
>> connection to any truth maker, thus are not truth bearers.
>
> Right, but Godel's G is NOT an epistemolgical antinomy, and neither is
> the sentence Tarski uses on that page of proof.
>
>>
>> That Gödel and Tarski included expressions of language that cannot
>> possibly have a correct Boolean value in their respective formal systems
>> was their key mistake invalidating both of their proofs.
>
> Nope, you just don't understand the sentences they give.
>
> The fact that you can't even give a proper summary of Godel's G is very
> telling.
>

He does it for me:
14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof.

>>
>>>>
>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>
>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>> false.
>>>
>>> Fallacy of Proof by Example.
>>>
>>> Proving your Stupidity.
>>
>> Prolog correctly determines that LP is not a truth bearer because it
>> correctly determines that is has no semantic connection to any truth
>> maker.
>
> The fact that Prolog can identify that one sentence is not a Truth
> Bearer does not establish that Prolog is a complete logic system that
> can handle the stuff you claim.
>

A dishonest dodge away for the point.
The fact the Prolog knows how to reject the basis of Tarski's proof
rejects the basis of Tarski proof. It need not reject the basis of every
proof under the Sun, hence the dishonest dodge aspect of your reply.

> The fact you make the claim just proves you are incompetent to handle
> logic.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> If that is the sort of logic system you want to talk about, ok, but
>>>>> make it clear, and admit you aren't talking about fields like the
>>>>> properties of the Natural Numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any expression of formal or natural language that cannot possibly have
>>>> any connection to a truth maker is not true. Epistemological antinomies
>>>> cannot possibly have a semantic connection to any truth maker, thus are
>>>> always untrue.
>>>
>>> So? I haven't been talking about Epistemological antinomies having a
>>> semantic connection to a truth maker,
>>
>> Then you have been dodging the key point because the Gödel and Tarski
>> proofs require an epistemological antinomy or they fail.
>
> Nope. You just don't seem to understand what an epistemological antinomy
> actually is, or what the sentences that they use are.
>
Yet again you only say what a bot could say.
If you think that I made any mistake and you want to be honest then you
must always explain every detail of why what I said seems to be a
mistake.

On 1/2/23 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/2/2023 10:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/2/23 11:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2023 9:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/23 9:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/2023 12:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/1/23 11:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/1/2023 10:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/1/23 11:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/2023 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/23 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/2023 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/23 2:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hardly anyone seems to understand that the Liar Paradox is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth bearer otherwise tertiary logic would have never been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> created.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No Nearly EVERYONE understands that in Binary Logic, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar Paracos is simply not a Truth Bearer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that all the people writing papers about how to
>>>>>>>>>>> resolve the Liar Paradox fail to understand binary logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Most INTELEGENT people trying to resolve the Liar's Paradox
>>>>>>>>>> understand Binary Logic, and are looking for logic beyond
>>>>>>>>>> Binary Logic to see if other Logical Paradigms might be able
>>>>>>>>>> to handle that sort of thing (and actually are probably
>>>>>>>>>> looking at things more complicated then the simple Liar's
>>>>>>>>>> Paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyone that is trying to resolve an expression of language that
>>>>>>>>> is not a
>>>>>>>>> truth bearer to a truth value is on a fools errand.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I will admit, that are probably a lot of DUMB people, who
>>>>>>>>>> don't understand logic, and are doing all sorts of dumb
>>>>>>>>>> things, and if those are hiting your radar, you need a better
>>>>>>>>>> selection filter.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Saul Kripke was by no means any sort of dumb
>>>>>>>>> https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And he isn't trying to say the Liar's Paradox is a Truth Beared.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At a quick glance he seems to be working on logic that handles
>>>>>>>> ill-defined statments with partial knowledge
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course, those are probably the works that you can sort of
>>>>>>>>>> understand, since they are at your level.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And actually, MOST people just understand that non-truth of
>>>>>>>>>> the Liar's Paradox and they leave it at that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tarski "proved" that truth cannot be specified and used the
>>>>>>>>> Liar Paradox as the foundation of this proof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not quite.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He Showed that if you presume a complete specification for truth
>>>>>>>> could exist in a system, that it is neccessarily possible to
>>>>>>>> prove that the Liar's Paradox is True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe Tarski made that same mistake you are are making.
>>>>>>> If Tarski believed that he proved this sentence is true in his
>>>>>>> meta-theory: "This sentence is not true" then Tarski made a
>>>>>>> terrible mistake.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> {This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"} would be
>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" is never true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My key skill from software engineering is to boil complex things
>>>>>>> down to their barest possible essence. Tarski already mostly did
>>>>>>> that for Gödel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you verify that his proof is only two pages yet?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Tarski%20-%20The%20Concept%20of%20Truth%20in%20Formalized%20Languages.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where in those pages do you see your summary expressed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, the construction of the Meta Theory is such that any
>>>>>> statement in the Theory means exactly the same thing in the Meta
>>>>>> Theory, so it isn't the meta theory having a statement referencing
>>>>>> the statement in the theory, but is a proof of the actual original
>>>>>> statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
>>>>> The outer-sentence has the same words as the inner sentence yet has a
>>>>> different semantic meaning because the inner sentence is self-
>>>>> referential and the outer sentence is not self-referential.
>>>>
>>>> And where are you getting these two sentences from?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is common knowledge that this is a version of the Liar Paradox:
>>> "This sentence is not true".
>>>
>>
>> so, what happened to the sentences:
>>
>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
>
> The RHS is the Liar Paradox. The whole sentence is one sentence
> referring to another sentence that refers to itself.

More lying by triming.

>
>>> The outer-sentence has the same words as the inner sentence yet has a
>>> different semantic meaning because the inner sentence is self-
>>> referential and the outer sentence is not self-referential.
>>
>> You seem to like editing out the parts being refered to.
>>
>> Just shows how little you understand about what is True.
>>
>>
>>> I discovered that when the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004)
>>> has been removed by applying the sentence to another instance of
>>> itself, then this new sentence is true.
>>>
>>
>> So? Since this isn't what the Theories are doing, it doesn't matter.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The proof you reference on pages 275-276 is just a simple proof
>>>>>> that it is possible to construct in the Theory a statement that
>>>>>> says, in effect, that statement x is not provable in the Theory if
>>>>>> and only if p is True. With p being a reference to the whole
>>>>>> sentence (Which is sort of Godels statement in the Meta-theory),
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LP := "this sentence is not true" // theory
>>>>> ~True(LP) // meta-theory
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you apperently don't understand the concept of a Meta Theory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A meta-theory merely has an additional level of indirection when
>>> referring to expression in the theory.
>>
>> Nope, says you don't understand the concept of the Meta-Theory,
>
> What do you think it means?

On 1/2/23 4:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/2/2023 2:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/2/23 3:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2023 10:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/23 10:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/2023 8:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/23 9:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/2/2023 12:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/2/23 12:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/2023 11:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/23 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/23 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that you have an IQ anywhere near the top
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1% much less
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the 185 IQ of top 2 in a billion. I could easily
>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe the top
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5%, most everyone here is in the top 5%.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter what you believe, as you have demonstrated
>>>>>>>>>>>> that you don't understand what is actually Truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You have not demonstrated any very significant understanding
>>>>>>>>>>> of these
>>>>>>>>>>> things. It does seem that you have demonstrated key
>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstandings of
>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski. I guy with a 2 in one billion IQ would not make these
>>>>>>>>>>> mistakes.
>>>>>>>>>>> A guy with a top 1% IQ might make these mistakes if they
>>>>>>>>>>> barely skimmed
>>>>>>>>>>> the material.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You can see that the proof is only two pages long, not too
>>>>>>>>>>> much to carefully study.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Tarski%20-%20The%20Concept%20of%20Truth%20in%20Formalized%20Languages.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> First, you confuse Intelgence with Knowledge.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I have mentioned before, this is an area that I admit I
>>>>>>>>>> haven't studied in great detail (but it seems I still
>>>>>>>>>> understand some of the point better than you, which shows your
>>>>>>>>>> lack of intelegence).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You claim Tarski bases his proof on the Liar needing a Truth
>>>>>>>>>> Value.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In fact, a simple reading of the text shows that he is using
>>>>>>>>>> the standard Proof by Contradiction to show that IF the
>>>>>>>>>> "Thesis A" which resumes a definition of Truth was actually
>>>>>>>>>> True, then we can prove that the Liar's Paradox is True.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since we know the Liar's Paradox is not a Truth Bearer, and
>>>>>>>>>> thus not True, the Thesis can not be true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IF I find the time, I might put the effort to read the papers
>>>>>>>>>> you have linked to and see if I can make some more detailed
>>>>>>>>>> comments on them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My first guess is a few days effort would probably be
>>>>>>>>>> sufficent, which compared to your decades, seems a reasonable
>>>>>>>>>> ratio considering our comparative intelegence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Finite Truth is all about showing that a truth maker semantic
>>>>>>>>> connection exists. If exists then true else untrue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where are you getting the term "Finite Truth".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even a guy with a top 1% IQ would be able to figure out from our
>>>>>>> prior
>>>>>>> context that I must mean expressions of language that have finite
>>>>>>> semantic connections to their truth maker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which means you aren't talking about ANYTHING that anyone else we
>>>>>> have been talking about would call "True", and thus meaningless
>>>>>> for this conversation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The subset of expressions of language that have finite semantic
>>>>> connections to their truth maker is not an entirely different subject
>>>>> than the set of expressions of language having semantic connections
>>>>> to their truth maker.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Limiting your definition of "True" to finite connections is the
>>>>>> equivalent of limiting it to Provable, which has been shown
>>>>>> (though you don't understand it) to leads either logic system that
>>>>>> are constrained in what they can handle, or they become inconsistent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. It leads to rejecting expressions of language that have
>>>>> no possible connection to any truth maker. Prolog can already do this.
>>>>
>>>> Bo, it leads to rejecting expression of language that DO have a
>>>> connection to a truth maker, because such a connect is infinite.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You and I and the set of human knowledge can all see that
>>> epistemological antinomies have no finite or infinite semantic
>>> connection to any truth maker, thus are not truth bearers.
>>
>> Right, but Godel's G is NOT an epistemolgical antinomy, and neither is
>> the sentence Tarski uses on that page of proof.
>>
>>>
>>> That Gödel and Tarski included expressions of language that cannot
>>> possibly have a correct Boolean value in their respective formal systems
>>> was their key mistake invalidating both of their proofs.
>>
>> Nope, you just don't understand the sentences they give.
>>
>> The fact that you can't even give a proper summary of Godel's G is
>> very telling.
>>
>
> He does it for me:
>   14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>      undecidability proof.

But that isn't a sumary of G, and the fact you think is it just prves
your stupidity.

To quote for some references to this:

Gödel specifically cites Richard's paradox and the liar paradox as
semantical analogues to his syntactical incompleteness result in the
introductory section of "On Formally Undecidable Propositions in
Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I". The liar paradox is the
sentence "This sentence is false." An analysis of the liar sentence
shows that it cannot be true (for then, as it asserts, it is false), nor
can it be false (for then, it is true). A Gödel sentence G for a system
F makes a similar assertion to the liar sentence, but with truth
replaced by provability: G says "G is not provable in the system F." The
analysis of the truth and provability of G is a formalized version of
the analysis of the truth of the liar sentence.

It is not possible to replace "not provable" with "false" in a Gödel
sentence because the predicate "Q is the Gödel number of a false
formula" cannot be represented as a formula of arithmetic. This result,
known as Tarski's undefinability theorem, was discovered independently
both by Gödel, when he was working on the proof of the incompleteness
theorem, and by the theorem's namesake, Alfred Tarski.

On 1/2/2023 3:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/2/23 4:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/2/2023 2:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/2/23 3:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/2023 10:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/23 10:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/2023 8:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/2/23 9:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/2/2023 12:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/23 12:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/2023 11:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/23 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/23 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that you have an IQ anywhere near the top
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1% much less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the 185 IQ of top 2 in a billion. I could easily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe the top
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5%, most everyone here is in the top 5%.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter what you believe, as you have demonstrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you don't understand what is actually Truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have not demonstrated any very significant understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>> of these
>>>>>>>>>>>> things. It does seem that you have demonstrated key
>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstandings of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski. I guy with a 2 in one billion IQ would not make
>>>>>>>>>>>> these mistakes.
>>>>>>>>>>>> A guy with a top 1% IQ might make these mistakes if they
>>>>>>>>>>>> barely skimmed
>>>>>>>>>>>> the material.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You can see that the proof is only two pages long, not too
>>>>>>>>>>>> much to carefully study.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Tarski%20-%20The%20Concept%20of%20Truth%20in%20Formalized%20Languages.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First, you confuse Intelgence with Knowledge.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As I have mentioned before, this is an area that I admit I
>>>>>>>>>>> haven't studied in great detail (but it seems I still
>>>>>>>>>>> understand some of the point better than you, which shows
>>>>>>>>>>> your lack of intelegence).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You claim Tarski bases his proof on the Liar needing a Truth
>>>>>>>>>>> Value.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, a simple reading of the text shows that he is using
>>>>>>>>>>> the standard Proof by Contradiction to show that IF the
>>>>>>>>>>> "Thesis A" which resumes a definition of Truth was actually
>>>>>>>>>>> True, then we can prove that the Liar's Paradox is True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since we know the Liar's Paradox is not a Truth Bearer, and
>>>>>>>>>>> thus not True, the Thesis can not be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> IF I find the time, I might put the effort to read the papers
>>>>>>>>>>> you have linked to and see if I can make some more detailed
>>>>>>>>>>> comments on them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My first guess is a few days effort would probably be
>>>>>>>>>>> sufficent, which compared to your decades, seems a reasonable
>>>>>>>>>>> ratio considering our comparative intelegence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Finite Truth is all about showing that a truth maker semantic
>>>>>>>>>> connection exists. If exists then true else untrue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where are you getting the term "Finite Truth".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even a guy with a top 1% IQ would be able to figure out from our
>>>>>>>> prior
>>>>>>>> context that I must mean expressions of language that have finite
>>>>>>>> semantic connections to their truth maker.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which means you aren't talking about ANYTHING that anyone else we
>>>>>>> have been talking about would call "True", and thus meaningless
>>>>>>> for this conversation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The subset of expressions of language that have finite semantic
>>>>>> connections to their truth maker is not an entirely different subject
>>>>>> than the set of expressions of language having semantic connections
>>>>>> to their truth maker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Limiting your definition of "True" to finite connections is the
>>>>>>> equivalent of limiting it to Provable, which has been shown
>>>>>>> (though you don't understand it) to leads either logic system
>>>>>>> that are constrained in what they can handle, or they become
>>>>>>> inconsistent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. It leads to rejecting expressions of language that
>>>>>> have no possible connection to any truth maker. Prolog can already
>>>>>> do this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bo, it leads to rejecting expression of language that DO have a
>>>>> connection to a truth maker, because such a connect is infinite.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You and I and the set of human knowledge can all see that
>>>> epistemological antinomies have no finite or infinite semantic
>>>> connection to any truth maker, thus are not truth bearers.
>>>
>>> Right, but Godel's G is NOT an epistemolgical antinomy, and neither
>>> is the sentence Tarski uses on that page of proof.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That Gödel and Tarski included expressions of language that cannot
>>>> possibly have a correct Boolean value in their respective formal
>>>> systems
>>>> was their key mistake invalidating both of their proofs.
>>>
>>> Nope, you just don't understand the sentences they give.
>>>
>>> The fact that you can't even give a proper summary of Godel's G is
>>> very telling.
>>>
>>
>> He does it for me:
>>    14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>       undecidability proof.
>
> But that isn't a sumary of G, and the fact you think is it just prves
> your stupidity.
>
>
> To quote for some references to this:
>
> Gödel specifically cites Richard's paradox and the liar paradox as
> semantical analogues to his syntactical incompleteness result in the
> introductory section of "On Formally Undecidable Propositions in
> Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I". The liar paradox is the
> sentence "This sentence is false." An analysis of the liar sentence
> shows that it cannot be true (for then, as it asserts, it is false), nor
> can it be false (for then, it is true). A Gödel sentence G for a system
> F makes a similar assertion to the liar sentence, but with truth
> replaced by provability: G says "G is not provable in the system F." The
> analysis of the truth and provability of G is a formalized version of
> the analysis of the truth of the liar sentence.
>
> It is not possible to replace "not provable" with "false" in a Gödel
> sentence because the predicate "Q is the Gödel number of a false
> formula" cannot be represented as a formula of arithmetic. This result,
> known as Tarski's undefinability theorem, was discovered independently
> both by Gödel, when he was working on the proof of the incompleteness
> theorem, and by the theorem's namesake, Alfred Tarski.
>
> Thus, it may be BASED on the Liars paradox, but it isn't the Liar's
> Paradox.
>
> And a description of the actual sentence of G is:
>
> Thus, although the Gödel sentence refers indirectly to sentences of the
> system F, when read as an arithmetical statement the Gödel sentence
> directly refers only to natural numbers. It asserts that no natural
> number has a particular property, where that property is given by a
> primitive recursive relation (Smith 2007, p. 141). As such, the Gödel
> sentence can be written in the language of arithmetic with a simple
> syntactic form. In particular, it can be expressed as a formula in the
> language of arithmetic consisting of a number of leading universal
> quantifiers followed by a quantifier-free body (these formulas are at
> level Pi 1/0 of the arithmetical hierarchy). Via the MRDP theorem, the
> Gödel sentence can be re-written as a statement that a particular
> polynomial in many variables with integer coefficients never takes the
> value zero when integers are substituted for its variables (Franzén
> 2005, p. 71).
>
>
> Thus, the ACTUAL Godel sentence is just a statement about
> Natural/Integer Numbers.
>
> The interpreation of it showing it is True but unprovable occurs in the
> Meta-Theory which provides an interpration of these numbers.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>>> false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fallacy of Proof by Example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proving your Stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> Prolog correctly determines that LP is not a truth bearer because it
>>>> correctly determines that is has no semantic connection to any truth
>>>> maker.
>>>
>>> The fact that Prolog can identify that one sentence is not a Truth
>>> Bearer does not establish that Prolog is a complete logic system that
>>> can handle the stuff you claim.
>>>
>>
>> A dishonest dodge away for the point.
>> The fact the Prolog knows how to reject the basis of Tarski's proof
>> rejects the basis of Tarski proof. It need not reject the basis of every
>> proof under the Sun, hence the dishonest dodge aspect of your reply.
>
> FALSE.
>
> Prolog only handles a limited set of expression, and will thus reject
> anything that uses higher level or more complicated logic than what it
> can handle.
>
> Prolog is limited to First Order Logic, so can't handle Mathematics
> which uses Second Order Logic.
>
> Your attempts to fake Second order logic by expanding the universe of
> what you are dealing with fails, as it moves your Universe to an
> UNCOUNTABLE infinite set, which breaks a lot of the logic principles
> that First Order Logic is built on.
>
> So, your use of Prolog just shows you ignorance of the actual basics of
> the theories you are working in.
>
>>
>>> The fact you make the claim just proves you are incompetent to handle
>>> logic.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that is the sort of logic system you want to talk about, ok,
>>>>>>> but make it clear, and admit you aren't talking about fields like
>>>>>>> the properties of the Natural Numbers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any expression of formal or natural language that cannot possibly
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> any connection to a truth maker is not true. Epistemological
>>>>>> antinomies
>>>>>> cannot possibly have a semantic connection to any truth maker,
>>>>>> thus are
>>>>>> always untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>> So? I haven't been talking about Epistemological antinomies having
>>>>> a semantic connection to a truth maker,
>>>>
>>>> Then you have been dodging the key point because the Gödel and Tarski
>>>> proofs require an epistemological antinomy or they fail.
>>>
>>> Nope. You just don't seem to understand what an epistemological
>>> antinomy actually is, or what the sentences that they use are.
>>>
>> Yet again you only say what a bot could say.
>> If you think that I made any mistake and you want to be honest then
>> you must always explain every detail of why what I said seems to be a
>> mistake.
>
> You keep on saying that Godel's G is an epistemological statement.
>
> I have explained to you what Godel's G acutally is.
>
> It is NOT an actual epistemological statement, and can't be, as the
> existance of a number that matches a computable property is always a
> Truth Bearer.
>
> Thus, you are in error, and too stupid to understand it.
>
>>
>> That you say that I made a mistake and do not provide any reasoning why
>> you think this is a mistake only indicates that you are trying to hide
>> your lack of understanding of what I said.
>
> That I HAVE provided reasoning, but you keep on saying I don't says you
> are too stupid to read what I have been writing.
>
> In fact, the fact that you keep on trying to repeat statements that I
> haven't objected to shows your lack of understanding.
>
>>
>>> G is NOT an epistemological antinomy, but a question about the
>>> existence of a number define to have a specific property defined by a
>>> primitive recursive relationship. Since Primative Recursive
>>> Relationships are Computable, the existance or lack thereof of a
>>> number that meets that relationship IS a Truth Bearer.
>>>
>>
>>    14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>       undecidability proof.
>>
>> Hence the Liar Paradox can be used as a basis and when this version is
>> refuted the refutation applies to G.
>
> Nope, you don't understand what he is saying, I have explained an you
> don't get it. Obviously you are just too stupid.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> but that some actually TRUE statement, having an infinite set of
>>>>> connections to a Truth Maker, actually ARE TRUE by definition, but
>>>>> are also not provable, since a proof needs a FINITE connect.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact you keep going to the antinomies shows you don't
>>>>> understand this basic concept, because you are just too stupid,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Verbatim quote of Gödel anchoring his key mistake:
>>>>    14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>       undecidability proof.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, His proof derives a Primative Recursive Relationship
>>> corresponding to the antinomy. The act of converting it in this way
>>> removes the antinomy, as it changes it from refering to the Truth of
>>> the statement to the Provability of the Statement.
>>>
>>> The Primative Recursive Relationship is not the epistemological
>>> Antinomy, by something based on the structure with a transform.
>>
>>    14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>       undecidability proof.
>>
>> Meaning that the Liar Paradox based proof is equivalent.
>>
>
> Nope, you don't understand what he is saying.
>
> And yes, the classical Godel G is based on the simple Liar's Paradox
> antinomy, but that antinomy is TRANSFORMED to a Truth Bearer

On 1/2/23 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/2/2023 3:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>> Nope, you don't understand what he is saying.
>>
>> And yes, the classical Godel G is based on the simple Liar's Paradox
>> antinomy, but that antinomy is TRANSFORMED to a Truth Bearer
>
> You are not smart enough (or truthful enough) to know (or acknowledge
> this is impossible.
>
> Try and show all of the detailed steps of exactly how the ordinary
> English Liar Paradox is transformed into a truth bearer and the
> incoherence (or dishonest dodge) of your answer will prove your lack of
> understanding (or dishonesty).
>

Read Godels proof!!

I think the problem is oit is just too advanced for you, even the
publish sketches are probably too complicated for you.

I will try to make a simple version that maybe is simple enough for you.

The first key point was that Godel came up with a way to encode any
statement or proof as a number. This puts the theory into the simple
realm of Mathematics. This encoding is only defined in the Meta-Theory

Then he used the fact that the validity of a proof is computable given a
finite set of fundamental axioms and logical operators, This is
basically does checks if form a complete connection from the assumed
basics and definitions to the final statement via a totally connected path.

This proof check can be combined with the encoding to create a Primative
Recursive Relationship, for which if a number exist that satisfy it,
that number represents a valid proof, and if no such number exists,
there is no proof of the statement.

The statement to prove is built from the antinomy, but changed so that
rather than talking about the Truth of the statement, it becomes about
the Provability of the statement.

Thus, the Liar's Paradox statement of "This Statement is False" becomes
instead "This Statement is unprovable".

(You may want to say that such a statement is not a truth bearer, but it
is, ALL statements of provability are truth bearers, you have even
admitted it, there is no "self reference" exception)

By the testability of a proof, this can be converted into a Primative
Recursive Relationship.

The statement can then transformed into the mathematical version of the
statement, which will be of the form that

"There does not exist a number g that satisfies the primative recursive
relationship" where that relationship is built from that statement.

Since the Primative Recursive Relationship doesn't use any feature
reserved to the Meta-Theory, but is just "ordinary" mathematics, it is
also a valid statement in the Base Theory.

There are a number of different ways to express this Relationship, but
all of them are "just math" so the sentence of G in the Theory is a
simple mathematical statement asking if a number g exists that meets a
relationship that is computable for all Natural Numbers, and thus is a
Truth Bearer.

By using the Meta-Theory, it is shown that if no number that meets that
requirement exists, then no proof exist, and thus in the Theory, this is
established to be True via an infinite set of steps (the checking of
each of the Natural Numbers), and by the Meta-Theory we see that if a
proof existed in the Theory of this fact, that would show up a number
that meet the relationship, which we assumed didn't happen.

If a number DOES exist that meets the requirement, then the statement is
false, but since the number exists, that says a proof that the statement
is true exists in the Theory, so the statement must be true.

Since the statement can't be both True and False, the second case is
shown to be impossible, and thus we must be in the first case, that no
number exists, and thus the statement is True in the Thery, but no proof
of it exists in the Theory.

On 1/2/2023 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/2/23 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/2/2023 3:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>>> Nope, you don't understand what he is saying.
>>>
>>> And yes, the classical Godel G is based on the simple Liar's Paradox
>>> antinomy, but that antinomy is TRANSFORMED to a Truth Bearer
>>
>> You are not smart enough (or truthful enough) to know (or acknowledge
>> this is impossible.
>>
>> Try and show all of the detailed steps of exactly how the ordinary
>> English Liar Paradox is transformed into a truth bearer and the
>> incoherence (or dishonest dodge) of your answer will prove your lack of
>> understanding (or dishonesty).
>>
>
> Read Godels proof!!
>
You said that:
"the simple Liar's Paradox antinomy, but that antinomy is TRANSFORMED to
a Truth Bearer"

Do it or admit that you don't know how.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/2/2023 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/2/23 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/2/2023 3:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>>> Nope, you don't understand what he is saying.
>>>
>>> And yes, the classical Godel G is based on the simple Liar's Paradox
>>> antinomy, but that antinomy is TRANSFORMED to a Truth Bearer
>>
>> You are not smart enough (or truthful enough) to know (or acknowledge
>> this is impossible.
>>
>> Try and show all of the detailed steps of exactly how the ordinary
>> English Liar Paradox is transformed into a truth bearer and the
>> incoherence (or dishonest dodge) of your answer will prove your lack of
>> understanding (or dishonesty).
>>
>
> Read Godels proof!!
>
"This sentence is not true" cannot possibly be shown to have a semantic
connection to any truth maker.

If it is transformed into a sentence that does have a semantic
connection to a truth maker then it is not the same sentence and the
"transformation" merely replaced the original sentence with an entirely
different sentence.

For a guy with a one in 2 billion IQ you seem quite stupid.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/2/2023 2:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/2/23 3:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/2/2023 10:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/2/23 10:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/2023 8:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/23 9:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/2023 12:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/2/23 12:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/1/2023 11:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/23 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/23 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that you have an IQ anywhere near the top 1%
>>>>>>>>>>>> much less
>>>>>>>>>>>> than the 185 IQ of top 2 in a billion. I could easily
>>>>>>>>>>>> believe the top
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5%, most everyone here is in the top 5%.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter what you believe, as you have demonstrated
>>>>>>>>>>> that you don't understand what is actually Truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have not demonstrated any very significant understanding
>>>>>>>>>> of these
>>>>>>>>>> things. It does seem that you have demonstrated key
>>>>>>>>>> misunderstandings of
>>>>>>>>>> Tarski. I guy with a 2 in one billion IQ would not make these
>>>>>>>>>> mistakes.
>>>>>>>>>> A guy with a top 1% IQ might make these mistakes if they
>>>>>>>>>> barely skimmed
>>>>>>>>>> the material.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can see that the proof is only two pages long, not too
>>>>>>>>>> much to carefully study.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Tarski%20-%20The%20Concept%20of%20Truth%20in%20Formalized%20Languages.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First, you confuse Intelgence with Knowledge.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I have mentioned before, this is an area that I admit I
>>>>>>>>> haven't studied in great detail (but it seems I still
>>>>>>>>> understand some of the point better than you, which shows your
>>>>>>>>> lack of intelegence).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You claim Tarski bases his proof on the Liar needing a Truth
>>>>>>>>> Value.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In fact, a simple reading of the text shows that he is using
>>>>>>>>> the standard Proof by Contradiction to show that IF the "Thesis
>>>>>>>>> A" which resumes a definition of Truth was actually True, then
>>>>>>>>> we can prove that the Liar's Paradox is True.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since we know the Liar's Paradox is not a Truth Bearer, and
>>>>>>>>> thus not True, the Thesis can not be true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IF I find the time, I might put the effort to read the papers
>>>>>>>>> you have linked to and see if I can make some more detailed
>>>>>>>>> comments on them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My first guess is a few days effort would probably be
>>>>>>>>> sufficent, which compared to your decades, seems a reasonable
>>>>>>>>> ratio considering our comparative intelegence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finite Truth is all about showing that a truth maker semantic
>>>>>>>> connection exists. If exists then true else untrue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where are you getting the term "Finite Truth".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even a guy with a top 1% IQ would be able to figure out from our
>>>>>> prior
>>>>>> context that I must mean expressions of language that have finite
>>>>>> semantic connections to their truth maker.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which means you aren't talking about ANYTHING that anyone else we
>>>>> have been talking about would call "True", and thus meaningless for
>>>>> this conversation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The subset of expressions of language that have finite semantic
>>>> connections to their truth maker is not an entirely different subject
>>>> than the set of expressions of language having semantic connections
>>>> to their truth maker.
>>>>
>>>>> Limiting your definition of "True" to finite connections is the
>>>>> equivalent of limiting it to Provable, which has been shown (though
>>>>> you don't understand it) to leads either logic system that are
>>>>> constrained in what they can handle, or they become inconsistent.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. It leads to rejecting expressions of language that have
>>>> no possible connection to any truth maker. Prolog can already do this.
>>>
>>> Bo, it leads to rejecting expression of language that DO have a
>>> connection to a truth maker, because such a connect is infinite.
>>>
>>
>> You and I and the set of human knowledge can all see that
>> epistemological antinomies have no finite or infinite semantic
>> connection to any truth maker, thus are not truth bearers.
>
> Right, but Godel's G is NOT an epistemolgical antinomy, and neither is
> the sentence Tarski uses on that page of proof.
>
>>
>> That Gödel and Tarski included expressions of language that cannot
>> possibly have a correct Boolean value in their respective formal systems
>> was their key mistake invalidating both of their proofs.
>
> Nope, you just don't understand the sentences they give.
>
> The fact that you can't even give a proper summary of Godel's G is very
> telling.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>
>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>> false.
>>>
>>> Fallacy of Proof by Example.
>>>
>>> Proving your Stupidity.
>>
>> Prolog correctly determines that LP is not a truth bearer because it
>> correctly determines that is has no semantic connection to any truth
>> maker.
>
> The fact that Prolog can identify that one sentence is not a Truth
> Bearer does not establish that Prolog is a complete logic system that
> can handle the stuff you claim.
>
> The fact you make the claim just proves you are incompetent to handle
> logic.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> If that is the sort of logic system you want to talk about, ok, but
>>>>> make it clear, and admit you aren't talking about fields like the
>>>>> properties of the Natural Numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any expression of formal or natural language that cannot possibly have
>>>> any connection to a truth maker is not true. Epistemological antinomies
>>>> cannot possibly have a semantic connection to any truth maker, thus are
>>>> always untrue.
>>>
>>> So? I haven't been talking about Epistemological antinomies having a
>>> semantic connection to a truth maker,
>>
>> Then you have been dodging the key point because the Gödel and Tarski
>> proofs require an epistemological antinomy or they fail.
>
> Nope. You just don't seem to understand what an epistemological antinomy
> actually is, or what the sentences that they use are.
>
> G is NOT an epistemological antinomy, but a question about the existence
> of a number define to have a specific property defined by a primitive
> recursive relationship.
> Since Primative Recursive Relationships are
> Computable, the existance or lack thereof of a number that meets that
> relationship IS a Truth Bearer.
>
>
>
>>
>>> but that some actually TRUE statement, having an infinite set of
>>> connections to a Truth Maker, actually ARE TRUE by definition, but
>>> are also not provable, since a proof needs a FINITE connect.
>>>
>>> The fact you keep going to the antinomies shows you don't understand
>>> this basic concept, because you are just too stupid,
>>>
>>
>> Verbatim quote of Gödel anchoring his key mistake:
>>    14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>       undecidability proof.
>>
>
> Right, His proof derives a Primative Recursive Relationship
> corresponding to the antinomy. The act of converting it in this way
> removes the antinomy,

On 1/2/2023 3:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/2/23 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/2/2023 10:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/2/23 11:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/2023 9:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/23 9:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/2023 12:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/1/23 11:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/1/2023 10:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/23 11:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/2023 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/23 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/2023 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/23 2:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hardly anyone seems to understand that the Liar Paradox is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth bearer otherwise tertiary logic would have never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been created.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No Nearly EVERYONE understands that in Binary Logic, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar Paracos is simply not a Truth Bearer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that all the people writing papers about how
>>>>>>>>>>>> to resolve the Liar Paradox fail to understand binary logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Most INTELEGENT people trying to resolve the Liar's Paradox
>>>>>>>>>>> understand Binary Logic, and are looking for logic beyond
>>>>>>>>>>> Binary Logic to see if other Logical Paradigms might be able
>>>>>>>>>>> to handle that sort of thing (and actually are probably
>>>>>>>>>>> looking at things more complicated then the simple Liar's
>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anyone that is trying to resolve an expression of language
>>>>>>>>>> that is not a
>>>>>>>>>> truth bearer to a truth value is on a fools errand.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I will admit, that are probably a lot of DUMB people, who
>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand logic, and are doing all sorts of dumb
>>>>>>>>>>> things, and if those are hiting your radar, you need a better
>>>>>>>>>>> selection filter.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Saul Kripke was by no means any sort of dumb
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And he isn't trying to say the Liar's Paradox is a Truth Beared.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At a quick glance he seems to be working on logic that handles
>>>>>>>>> ill-defined statments with partial knowledge
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, those are probably the works that you can sort of
>>>>>>>>>>> understand, since they are at your level.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And actually, MOST people just understand that non-truth of
>>>>>>>>>>> the Liar's Paradox and they leave it at that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tarski "proved" that truth cannot be specified and used the
>>>>>>>>>> Liar Paradox as the foundation of this proof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not quite.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He Showed that if you presume a complete specification for
>>>>>>>>> truth could exist in a system, that it is neccessarily possible
>>>>>>>>> to prove that the Liar's Paradox is True.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe Tarski made that same mistake you are are making.
>>>>>>>> If Tarski believed that he proved this sentence is true in his
>>>>>>>> meta-theory: "This sentence is not true" then Tarski made a
>>>>>>>> terrible mistake.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> {This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"} would
>>>>>>>> be true.
>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" is never true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My key skill from software engineering is to boil complex things
>>>>>>>> down to their barest possible essence. Tarski already mostly did
>>>>>>>> that for Gödel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did you verify that his proof is only two pages yet?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Tarski%20-%20The%20Concept%20of%20Truth%20in%20Formalized%20Languages.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where in those pages do you see your summary expressed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, the construction of the Meta Theory is such that any
>>>>>>> statement in the Theory means exactly the same thing in the Meta
>>>>>>> Theory, so it isn't the meta theory having a statement
>>>>>>> referencing the statement in the theory, but is a proof of the
>>>>>>> actual original statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
>>>>>> The outer-sentence has the same words as the inner sentence yet has a
>>>>>> different semantic meaning because the inner sentence is self-
>>>>>> referential and the outer sentence is not self-referential.
>>>>>
>>>>> And where are you getting these two sentences from?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is common knowledge that this is a version of the Liar Paradox:
>>>> "This sentence is not true".
>>>>
>>>
>>> so, what happened to the sentences:
>>>
>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
>>
>> The RHS is the Liar Paradox. The whole sentence is one sentence
>> referring to another sentence that refers to itself.
>
> More lying by triming.
>
>>
>>>> The outer-sentence has the same words as the inner sentence yet has a
>>>> different semantic meaning because the inner sentence is self-
>>>> referential and the outer sentence is not self-referential.
>>>
>>> You seem to like editing out the parts being refered to.
>>>
>>> Just shows how little you understand about what is True.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I discovered that when the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004)
>>>> has been removed by applying the sentence to another instance of
>>>> itself, then this new sentence is true.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So? Since this isn't what the Theories are doing, it doesn't matter.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The proof you reference on pages 275-276 is just a simple proof
>>>>>>> that it is possible to construct in the Theory a statement that
>>>>>>> says, in effect, that statement x is not provable in the Theory
>>>>>>> if and only if p is True. With p being a reference to the whole
>>>>>>> sentence (Which is sort of Godels statement in the Meta-theory),
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LP := "this sentence is not true" // theory
>>>>>> ~True(LP) // meta-theory
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, you apperently don't understand the concept of a Meta Theory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A meta-theory merely has an additional level of indirection when
>>>> referring to expression in the theory.
>>>
>>> Nope, says you don't understand the concept of the Meta-Theory,
>>
>> What do you think it means?
>
> For instance, for Godel, we have in the theory, we have a statement "G"
> in the theory that says that there does not exist a Natural Number with
> a spicific property specified by a specified Primative Recursive
> Relationship.
>
> In the Meta-Theory, the statement means the same thing, but it also has
> a semantic connection to the fact that a number that meets that
> Primitive Recursive Relationship represents a Proof of the statement "G"
> within the Theory.
>
> We can then in the Meta-Theory prove that no such number can exist, and
> since both Theory and Meta-Theory use the same rules for mathematics,
> that means that no such number can exist in the Theory, so "G" must be
> True in the system.
>
> Since no such number exist, we know from the Meta-Theory that no proof
> of G can exist in the Theory (or the number corresponding to the theory
> would exist).
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> LP := "This sentence is not true" // LP in the theory
>>>> ~True(LP) // LP in the meta-theory
>>>
>>> Nope. You aren't understanding the Meta Theory. I guess you mind is
>>> just too week.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sentence x exists in the domain of the Theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> That exact same Sentence exist in the Meta-Theory, not a sentence
>>>>
>>>> Not, not at all, this is incorrect. The sentence in the meta-theory has
>>>> exactly one level of indirect reference to the sentence in the theory.
>>>
>>> Nope, because the statement in the Theory is ALSO a statement in the
>>> Meta-Theory, because of the rules used to create the Meta-Theory.
>>>
>>
>> The sentence in the theory (even though it has the same words) is not
>> the same as the sentence in the theory. The sentence in the theory
>> refers to itself thus preventing it from  being a truth bearer. The
>> sentence in the meat-theory refers to the sentence on the theory
>> otherwise it too would not be a truth bearer.
>
> Nope. The sentence in the Theory makes no refernce to itself (for Godel
> at least). Like I said, the Godel sentence is about the existance of a
> Natural Number with a specified property. It is only in the Meta-Theory
> that we can connect that property to the sentence itself
>
>>
>> Any sentence of the form:
>> X := ~True(X) is not a truth bearer in any formal system.
>
> Which isn't the form of any of the sentences, which you should know if
> you read any of them.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> REFERING to the sentence in the Theory. It means the same thing,
>>>>> but with a wider context by the definition of the Meta Theory.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is NOT the "Liars Paradox", as the liar's paradox is about a
>>>>>>> statement being TRUE, not about it being PROVABLE. (and in fact, it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Everywhere, both in the formulation of the
>>>>>>    theorem and in its proof, we replace the symbol 'Tr' by the
>>>>>>    symbol 'Pr' which denotes the class of all provable sentences
>>>>>>    of the theory under consideration
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Tarski used Pr as a proxy for Tr*
>>>>>
>>>>> You understand that is a direct result of the Theory he referenced?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is no "Proxy".
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you need to study THAT Theory to understand it.
>>>>
>>>> When Tarski substitutes the symbol Tr with the symbol Pr he is
>>>> saying that he is construing True to mean Provable.
>>>
>>> Nope. You don't understand what he is doing.
>>>
>>
>> What do you think he means, even a bot can merely disagree.
>
> He is using the method of his Proof of Theorem I, and in the proof
> making a change of True for Provable.
>
> That yeilds (as he says) that expression.
>
>>
>>> You seem to be missing that he is using the NEGATION of the first
>>> sentence built according to the Theory he is referencing.
>>>
>>
>> And he is substituting Pr for Tr.
>
> Right, IN THE STEPS OF THE PROOF of Theorem I, so repeat that proof
> using Pr instead of Tr.
>
> Find the error in that proof with that change.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (3) x ∉ Pr if and only if x ∈ Tr.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True.
>>>>>> ~Provable(x) ↔ True(x).
>>>>>> x is true if and only if x is unprovable
>>>>>>
>>>>>> x is true if and only if x lacks the required semantic connection
>>>>>> to a
>>>>>> truth maker is false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is the same sort of thing as saying that one can only bake an
>>>>>> angel
>>>>>> food cake when one lacks the ingredients for an angel food cake.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, You are arguing with the result of the mentioned Theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to find the flaw in its proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a necessary consequence of the requirements of the system
>>>>> that such a statement is allowed to be created.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your failure to understand it shows how LOW your IQ is.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> looks like the top of page 275 is him showing why this statement
>>>>>>> IS a Truth Bearer, using his words that "We can construct a
>>>>>>> sentence x of the science in question". I beleive you will find
>>>>>>> this is his terminology to describe sentneces which are what you
>>>>>>> call Truth Bearers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the premise x is provable, or it is not true that x is
>>>>>>> provable are BY DEFINITION truth bears.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not a little bear that always tells the truth, it is that the
>>>>>> expression of language has a Boolean semantic value of true or false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. The statements x is Provable, x is not Provable, and x is
>>>>> True are all statements which are Truth Bearers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Every sentence that claims that it has zero semantic connections to a
>>>> truth maker either has a semantic connection to a truth maker making
>>>> it false or has no semantic connection to a truth maker making it
>>>> untrue.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But becaue of the Theorem, the statement IS a truth Bearer, so untrue
>>> is false.
>>>
>>
>> X := ~True(X) is never ever a truth bearer.
>
> But that isn't any of the statements in question
>
>>
>>> You are ignoring the Theorem he is referencing, probably because you
>>> don't understand it.
>>>
>>>>> From the previously mentiond Theory, the whole statement is a Truth
>>>>> Bearer, and that Requires that the only possible case is that x is
>>>>> True and x is not Provable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Already addressed above. Provable means having a finite semantic
>>>> connection to a truth maker, thus every sentence that has zero semantic
>>>> connections to a truth maker has zero finite connections to a truth
>>>> maker. Epistemological antinomies have zero connections to any truth
>>>> maker, thus are both untrue and unprovable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But the statement isn't an Epistemolgogical antinomy, because it was
>>> proven to be a Truth Bearer by the Theorem.
>>>
>>
>> Epistemolgogical antinomy cannot possibly ever be true because it means
>> that a semantic connection to a truth maker cannot possibly exist.
>> It is the same thing as my pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004).
>
> But they aren't one.
>
>>
>>> You just THINK is is an Epistemological antinomy because you confuse
>>> Provable with Truth,
>>
>> If there is no finite or infinite connection from an expression of
>> language to a truth maker then the expression is necessarily never true.
>>
>> This is what I mean by saying that True(x) ≡ Provable(x).
>
> Which is nonsense, since Provable(x) means there is a FINITE chain of
> connections between the statement and its truth makers while True(x)
> means there is a finite or INFINITE chain of connections between the
> statement and its truth makers.
>
> Thus True(x) != Provable(x) since some statements (in rich enough
> systems) have statements that have this infinite set of connections.
>
>>
>> Now that I have accounted for infinite proofs I say the same sort of
>> thing like this: True(x) ↔ (⊨x).
>
> Infinte Proof do not exist in classical theory.
>
> If you are defining Provable to mean including Infinite proof, you can
> use NO logic about provability of statements from any of that logic.
>
> You are thus showing that you are just a LIAR when you use your
> terminolgy and applying any of the classical logic theory.
>
> You have just shown you have wasted decades of your life. You should
> have been working on the low level statements of logic with your changed
> definition of Provable.
>
> Of course, one problem you run into is that with your system, provable
> no longer means Knowable, as Knowable still requires a finite proof.
>
>>
>>>>> You can't just take a proven statement and say it can't be true
>>>>> because you don't like it or it breaks something you would like to
>>>>> be a rule.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You already agreed that every expression of language that has zero
>>>> finite or infinite connections to a truth maker is untrue.
>>>
>>> No, I never agreed that an infinite set of connections makes a
>>> statment untrue, it make it TRUE.
>>
>> *Please pay attention*
>> *Please pay attention*
>> *Please pay attention*
>> *Please pay attention*
>>
>> If there are zero finite semantic connections to a truth maker
>> AND
>> there are zero infinite semantic connections to a truth maker
>> *then this expression of language is untrue*
>>
>
> So, you AGREE that the presence of a single infinte sequnce of
> connections makes a statement TRUE, and also makes it UNPROVABLE and
> UNKNOWABLE. (per standard theory).
>

On 1/2/23 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/2/2023 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/2/23 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2023 3:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>> Nope, you don't understand what he is saying.
>>>>
>>>> And yes, the classical Godel G is based on the simple Liar's Paradox
>>>> antinomy, but that antinomy is TRANSFORMED to a Truth Bearer
>>>
>>> You are not smart enough (or truthful enough) to know (or acknowledge
>>> this is impossible.
>>>
>>> Try and show all of the detailed steps of exactly how the ordinary
>>> English Liar Paradox is transformed into a truth bearer and the
>>> incoherence (or dishonest dodge) of your answer will prove your lack of
>>> understanding (or dishonesty).
>>>
>>
>> Read Godels proof!!
>>
> You said that:
> "the simple Liar's Paradox antinomy, but that antinomy is TRANSFORMED to
> a Truth Bearer"
>
> Do it or admit that you don't know how.
>

And the Truth Bearer is the statement "This statement is not Provable".

What did you think I meant?

I note you have clipped all of my discsussion on what Godel was saying.

Every comment from now on that shows you don't understand it (unless
actully asking about a clarification in it) will be takens as proof that
you are too dumb to handle the logic.

On 1/2/23 9:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/2/2023 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/2/23 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2023 3:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>> Nope, you don't understand what he is saying.
>>>>
>>>> And yes, the classical Godel G is based on the simple Liar's Paradox
>>>> antinomy, but that antinomy is TRANSFORMED to a Truth Bearer
>>>
>>> You are not smart enough (or truthful enough) to know (or acknowledge
>>> this is impossible.
>>>
>>> Try and show all of the detailed steps of exactly how the ordinary
>>> English Liar Paradox is transformed into a truth bearer and the
>>> incoherence (or dishonest dodge) of your answer will prove your lack of
>>> understanding (or dishonesty).
>>>
>>
>> Read Godels proof!!
>>
> "This sentence is not true" cannot possibly be shown to have a semantic
> connection to any truth maker.
>

Never said it did

> If it is transformed into a sentence that does have a semantic
> connection to a truth maker then it is not the same sentence and the
> "transformation" merely replaced the original sentence with an entirely
> different sentence.

So you don't understand that TRANSFORMING something results in something
other than what you started with?

The resultant sentences isnn't "Entirely" different, but is based on a
similar strutre with key aspect changed.

Is this a new concept to you?

>
> For a guy with a one in 2 billion IQ you seem quite stupid.
>
>
And you seem to be a person with a 1 in 2 billion IQ, but on the BOTTOM end.

On 1/2/23 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/2/2023 2:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/2/23 3:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2023 10:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/23 10:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/2023 8:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/23 9:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/2/2023 12:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/2/23 12:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/2023 11:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/23 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/1/23 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that you have an IQ anywhere near the top
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1% much less
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the 185 IQ of top 2 in a billion. I could easily
>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe the top
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5%, most everyone here is in the top 5%.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter what you believe, as you have demonstrated
>>>>>>>>>>>> that you don't understand what is actually Truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You have not demonstrated any very significant understanding
>>>>>>>>>>> of these
>>>>>>>>>>> things. It does seem that you have demonstrated key
>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstandings of
>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski. I guy with a 2 in one billion IQ would not make these
>>>>>>>>>>> mistakes.
>>>>>>>>>>> A guy with a top 1% IQ might make these mistakes if they
>>>>>>>>>>> barely skimmed
>>>>>>>>>>> the material.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You can see that the proof is only two pages long, not too
>>>>>>>>>>> much to carefully study.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Tarski%20-%20The%20Concept%20of%20Truth%20in%20Formalized%20Languages.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> First, you confuse Intelgence with Knowledge.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I have mentioned before, this is an area that I admit I
>>>>>>>>>> haven't studied in great detail (but it seems I still
>>>>>>>>>> understand some of the point better than you, which shows your
>>>>>>>>>> lack of intelegence).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You claim Tarski bases his proof on the Liar needing a Truth
>>>>>>>>>> Value.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In fact, a simple reading of the text shows that he is using
>>>>>>>>>> the standard Proof by Contradiction to show that IF the
>>>>>>>>>> "Thesis A" which resumes a definition of Truth was actually
>>>>>>>>>> True, then we can prove that the Liar's Paradox is True.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since we know the Liar's Paradox is not a Truth Bearer, and
>>>>>>>>>> thus not True, the Thesis can not be true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IF I find the time, I might put the effort to read the papers
>>>>>>>>>> you have linked to and see if I can make some more detailed
>>>>>>>>>> comments on them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My first guess is a few days effort would probably be
>>>>>>>>>> sufficent, which compared to your decades, seems a reasonable
>>>>>>>>>> ratio considering our comparative intelegence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Finite Truth is all about showing that a truth maker semantic
>>>>>>>>> connection exists. If exists then true else untrue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where are you getting the term "Finite Truth".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even a guy with a top 1% IQ would be able to figure out from our
>>>>>>> prior
>>>>>>> context that I must mean expressions of language that have finite
>>>>>>> semantic connections to their truth maker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which means you aren't talking about ANYTHING that anyone else we
>>>>>> have been talking about would call "True", and thus meaningless
>>>>>> for this conversation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The subset of expressions of language that have finite semantic
>>>>> connections to their truth maker is not an entirely different subject
>>>>> than the set of expressions of language having semantic connections
>>>>> to their truth maker.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Limiting your definition of "True" to finite connections is the
>>>>>> equivalent of limiting it to Provable, which has been shown
>>>>>> (though you don't understand it) to leads either logic system that
>>>>>> are constrained in what they can handle, or they become inconsistent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. It leads to rejecting expressions of language that have
>>>>> no possible connection to any truth maker. Prolog can already do this.
>>>>
>>>> Bo, it leads to rejecting expression of language that DO have a
>>>> connection to a truth maker, because such a connect is infinite.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You and I and the set of human knowledge can all see that
>>> epistemological antinomies have no finite or infinite semantic
>>> connection to any truth maker, thus are not truth bearers.
>>
>> Right, but Godel's G is NOT an epistemolgical antinomy, and neither is
>> the sentence Tarski uses on that page of proof.
>>
>>>
>>> That Gödel and Tarski included expressions of language that cannot
>>> possibly have a correct Boolean value in their respective formal systems
>>> was their key mistake invalidating both of their proofs.
>>
>> Nope, you just don't understand the sentences they give.
>>
>> The fact that you can't even give a proper summary of Godel's G is
>> very telling.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>
>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>> false.
>>>>
>>>> Fallacy of Proof by Example.
>>>>
>>>> Proving your Stupidity.
>>>
>>> Prolog correctly determines that LP is not a truth bearer because it
>>> correctly determines that is has no semantic connection to any truth
>>> maker.
>>
>> The fact that Prolog can identify that one sentence is not a Truth
>> Bearer does not establish that Prolog is a complete logic system that
>> can handle the stuff you claim.
>>
>> The fact you make the claim just proves you are incompetent to handle
>> logic.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If that is the sort of logic system you want to talk about, ok,
>>>>>> but make it clear, and admit you aren't talking about fields like
>>>>>> the properties of the Natural Numbers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Any expression of formal or natural language that cannot possibly have
>>>>> any connection to a truth maker is not true. Epistemological
>>>>> antinomies
>>>>> cannot possibly have a semantic connection to any truth maker, thus
>>>>> are
>>>>> always untrue.
>>>>
>>>> So? I haven't been talking about Epistemological antinomies having a
>>>> semantic connection to a truth maker,
>>>
>>> Then you have been dodging the key point because the Gödel and Tarski
>>> proofs require an epistemological antinomy or they fail.
>>
>> Nope. You just don't seem to understand what an epistemological
>> antinomy actually is, or what the sentences that they use are.
>>
>> G is NOT an epistemological antinomy, but a question about the
>> existence of a number define to have a specific property defined by a
>> primitive recursive relationship. Since Primative Recursive
>> Relationships are Computable, the existance or lack thereof of a
>> number that meets that relationship IS a Truth Bearer.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> but that some actually TRUE statement, having an infinite set of
>>>> connections to a Truth Maker, actually ARE TRUE by definition, but
>>>> are also not provable, since a proof needs a FINITE connect.
>>>>
>>>> The fact you keep going to the antinomies shows you don't understand
>>>> this basic concept, because you are just too stupid,
>>>>
>>>
>>> Verbatim quote of Gödel anchoring his key mistake:
>>>    14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>       undecidability proof.
>>>
>>
>> Right, His proof derives a Primative Recursive Relationship
>> corresponding to the antinomy. The act of converting it in this way
>> removes the antinomy,
>
> "This sentence is not true" asserts that it has no semantic connection
> to a truth maker.
>
> This sentence is not true: "This sentence in not true" has a semantic
> connection to a truth maker.

On 1/2/23 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/2/2023 3:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>> So, you AGREE that the presence of a single infinte sequnce of
>> connections makes a statement TRUE, and also makes it UNPROVABLE and
>> UNKNOWABLE. (per standard theory).
>>
>
> Yes, yet when there is no finite or infinite semantic connection to a
> truth maker (as in all epistemological antinomies) such as:
> (a) This sentence is not true
> (b) This sentence is not provable
> Then the sentence must be rejected as not a member of any formal system.

Except that there IS an infinite semantic connection to the statement
"This sentence is not provable"

Thus it is NOT an epistemological antinomy, but is actually True.

>
>> If you aren't using standard theory, you can't use any of material
>> derived based on the standard theory. You can't say you have refuted
>> Godel or Tarski since you aren't talking about the systems that they
>> were shown in.
>
> No one has defined True(x) as a semantic connection to a truth maker and
> applied this definition to Tarski and Gödel, rejecting their
> epistemological antinomy (non-truth bearer) basis, that I am aware of.

Yes, they have. Maybe not using your words, but the key point is you
don't seem to understand that ther IS

>
> You can say that G is not an epistemological antinomy none-the-less
> Gödel said the proofs based on epistemological antinomies are equivalent
> thus refuted them refutes Gödel.
>
Nope, you ar just showing that you don't know what you are talking about
because you are just too stupid.

You are just showing that YOU are just a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.

On 1/2/2023 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/2/23 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/2/2023 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/2/23 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/2023 3:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Nope, you don't understand what he is saying.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yes, the classical Godel G is based on the simple Liar's
>>>>> Paradox antinomy, but that antinomy is TRANSFORMED to a Truth Bearer
>>>>
>>>> You are not smart enough (or truthful enough) to know (or acknowledge
>>>> this is impossible.
>>>>
>>>> Try and show all of the detailed steps of exactly how the ordinary
>>>> English Liar Paradox is transformed into a truth bearer and the
>>>> incoherence (or dishonest dodge) of your answer will prove your lack of
>>>> understanding (or dishonesty).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Read Godels proof!!
>>>
>> You said that:
>> "the simple Liar's Paradox antinomy, but that antinomy is TRANSFORMED
>> to a Truth Bearer"
>>
>> Do it or admit that you don't know how.
>>
>
> And the Truth Bearer is the statement "This statement is not Provable".
>
>

This sentence is not provable.
It is not provable about what?
It is not provable about being not provable.
It is not provable about being not provable about what?
It is not provable about being provable about being not provable.

Not even a little brown truth bear.

> What did you think I meant?
>
>
>
> I note you have clipped all of my discsussion  on what Godel was saying.
>
> Every comment from now on that shows you don't understand it (unless
> actully asking about a clarification in it) will be takens as proof that
> you are too dumb to handle the logic.
>
>

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-6, olcott wrote:
> On 1/2/2023 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 1/2/23 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> >> On 1/2/2023 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>> On 1/2/23 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 1/2/2023 3:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Nope, you don't understand what he is saying.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And yes, the classical Godel G is based on the simple Liar's
> >>>>> Paradox antinomy, but that antinomy is TRANSFORMED to a Truth Bearer
> >>>>
> >>>> You are not smart enough (or truthful enough) to know (or acknowledge
> >>>> this is impossible.
> >>>>
> >>>> Try and show all of the detailed steps of exactly how the ordinary
> >>>> English Liar Paradox is transformed into a truth bearer and the
> >>>> incoherence (or dishonest dodge) of your answer will prove your lack of
> >>>> understanding (or dishonesty).
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Read Godels proof!!
> >>>
> >> You said that:
> >> "the simple Liar's Paradox antinomy, but that antinomy is TRANSFORMED
> >> to a Truth Bearer"
> >>
> >> Do it or admit that you don't know how.
> >>
> >
> > And the Truth Bearer is the statement "This statement is not Provable".
> >
> >
> This sentence is not provable.
> It is not provable about what?
> It is not provable about being not provable.
> It is not provable about being not provable about what?
> It is not provable about being provable about being not provable.
>
> Not even a little brown truth bear.
> > What did you think I meant?
> >
> >
> >
> > I note you have clipped all of my discsussion on what Godel was saying..
> >
> > Every comment from now on that shows you don't understand it (unless
> > actully asking about a clarification in it) will be takens as proof that
> > you are too dumb to handle the logic.
> >
> >
> --
> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah and amenities and vanities and amenities wow mama blah logic you're too dumb to understand my mama baba blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Barbara N cheese hey man she's a man she's a man blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah we just took up so many bites of computer space that the world will be unable to divert astroid pansy in the year 2027 and everyone will die blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Babel Babel Babel Babel Babel Babel Babel Babel Babel Babel Babel Babel you're too stupid to understand this logic Bob Bob Bob Bob blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah we are to where we're taking up valuable computer space to babble about this crap forever this crap being logic everyone knows logic is a roadblock to the advancement of civilization it takes insanity to advance civilization blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah you're too stupid to understand this to me that my post right here is perfectly clear you're too stupid to understand it blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah we're here posting all this crap about truth values when we could be out harvesting pecans and feeding people blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah what's that you say what's that you say Putin Launch what's that you say Putin win a little crazy and did a preemptive launch of all of his nuclear mind against the United States what the fuck do we do now we have no ABM system blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah I guess the best we can do is do a massive retaliatory strike as these fuckers say as they sit in their fucking little meetings in their fucking little rooms in and realize that this is all gotten so far over their fucking hands they can't do anything anymore just hope and pray to God that the other side doesn't do anything blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah and so what if we have total war between the United States Russia and China total war involves killing all the civilians to his role as a military people blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Barbara and Barbara and Barbara Barbara and she's a man that Barbara and Bob blah blah blah blah blah blah blah fantastic inside fantastic insight into the true nature of reality is isomorphic to insanity blah blah blah blah blah and after versus devoid of human life will the galaxy care no it won't care will establish a little analogy here the galaxy is like a city of 1 million people the earth is like one homeless person in that city what the fuck would the galaxy care if one no wait a minute I got that wrong what the fuck would hey Siri 1 million care yes one of his homeless people died he wouldn't give a shit right what was the galaxy care if earth was devoid of life and it's crushed was re-melted from nuclear weapons weapons weapons weapons weapons weapons he wouldn't care just keep on spinning away and existing within the hundred quadrillion other galaxies and blah blah blah blah Bob Moran blah blah blah blah blah blah barber ass in Barbara ass in Barbara Ann not and Andy but and I will see there is a dictation corrected itself blah blah blah blah blah Beran blah blah blah blah blah blah bobbery in she's a man that our barber throws getting too sore to talk anymore you people have a nice day and eat more pecans

On 1/2/23 11:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/2/2023 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/2/23 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2023 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/23 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/2023 3:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, you don't understand what he is saying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yes, the classical Godel G is based on the simple Liar's
>>>>>> Paradox antinomy, but that antinomy is TRANSFORMED to a Truth Bearer
>>>>>
>>>>> You are not smart enough (or truthful enough) to know (or acknowledge
>>>>> this is impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try and show all of the detailed steps of exactly how the ordinary
>>>>> English Liar Paradox is transformed into a truth bearer and the
>>>>> incoherence (or dishonest dodge) of your answer will prove your
>>>>> lack of
>>>>> understanding (or dishonesty).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read Godels proof!!
>>>>
>>> You said that:
>>> "the simple Liar's Paradox antinomy, but that antinomy is TRANSFORMED
>>> to a Truth Bearer"
>>>
>>> Do it or admit that you don't know how.
>>>
>>
>> And the Truth Bearer is the statement "This statement is not Provable".
>>
>>
>
> This sentence is not provable.
> It is not provable about what?

???? You don't understand what a statement not being provable means?

There exists no finite set of Semantic Connections which can take you
from your know set of Truth Makers to the Statement in the Theory.

Note, maybe it might be more correct to say the statement is:

"This statement is not provable in <the Theory>"

> It is not provable about being not provable.
> It is not provable about being not provable about what?
> It is not provable about being provable about being not provable.
>
> Not even a little brown truth bear.

Because you are too stupid.

Remember, this is the meaning of the statement in the Meta-Theory.

The ACTUAL statement in the Theory, is:

There does not exist a Natural Number g that satisfies <a specified
Primitive Recursive Relationship>

The exact Primitive Recursive Relationship is developed per all the
Mathematics described in his Theory, and is likely totally over your head.

The key point is, that being a simple statement about the existance of a
number that satifies a computable relationship, it is provable that the
statement is a Truth Bearer, as such a number either does exist or it
doesn't, so the Law of the Excluded Middle holds for that statement.

It turns out that for this particular relationship, no number exists
that matches the relationship, but it is impossible to actually prove
that except via an exhaustive search.

This is perhaps like the Collatz conjecture, for which we haven't been
able to find a number that breaks the pattern, but we haven't been able
to prove that no such number exists. It is quite possible that there
actually IS no such number and that no proof of that fact exists.

Interesting note, it would be impossible to prove that the conjecture is
unprovable, because that would be, in itself, a proof that it was true,
as if it was false, that would just require just showing some value
doesn't go to 1, which if the number exists would be provable.

>
>> What did you think I meant?
>>
>>
>>
>> I note you have clipped all of my discsussion  on what Godel was saying.
>>
>> Every comment from now on that shows you don't understand it (unless
>> actully asking about a clarification in it) will be takens as proof
>> that you are too dumb to handle the logic.
>>
>>
>

On 1/3/2023 5:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/2/23 11:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/2/2023 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/2/23 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/2023 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/23 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/2023 3:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, you don't understand what he is saying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yes, the classical Godel G is based on the simple Liar's
>>>>>>> Paradox antinomy, but that antinomy is TRANSFORMED to a Truth Bearer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are not smart enough (or truthful enough) to know (or acknowledge
>>>>>> this is impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try and show all of the detailed steps of exactly how the ordinary
>>>>>> English Liar Paradox is transformed into a truth bearer and the
>>>>>> incoherence (or dishonest dodge) of your answer will prove your
>>>>>> lack of
>>>>>> understanding (or dishonesty).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Read Godels proof!!
>>>>>
>>>> You said that:
>>>> "the simple Liar's Paradox antinomy, but that antinomy is
>>>> TRANSFORMED to a Truth Bearer"
>>>>
>>>> Do it or admit that you don't know how.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And the Truth Bearer is the statement "This statement is not Provable".
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This sentence is not provable.
>> It is not provable about what?
>
> ???? You don't understand what a statement not being provable means?
>
> There exists no finite set of Semantic Connections which can take you
> from your know set of Truth Makers to the Statement in the Theory.
>
> Note, maybe it might be more correct to say the statement is:
>
> "This statement is not provable in <the Theory>"
>
>
>> It is not provable about being not provable.
>> It is not provable about being not provable about what?
>> It is not provable about being provable about being not provable.
>>
>> Not even a little brown truth bear.
>
> Because you are too stupid.
>
> Remember, this is the meaning of the statement in the Meta-Theory.
>
> The ACTUAL statement in the Theory, is:
>
> There does not exist a Natural Number g that satisfies <a specified
> Primitive Recursive Relationship>
>
> The exact Primitive Recursive Relationship is developed per all the
> Mathematics described in his Theory, and is likely totally over your head.
>
> The key point is, that being a simple statement about the existance of a
> number that satifies a computable relationship, it is provable that the
> statement is a Truth Bearer, as such a number either does exist or it
> doesn't, so the Law of the Excluded Middle holds for that statement.
>
> It turns out that for this particular relationship, no number exists
> that matches the relationship, but it is impossible to actually prove
> that except via an exhaustive search.
>

https://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/pj2943kt/Fall%202015/Promotion%20Application/Previous%20Years%20Article%2022%20Materials/godel-1931.pdf

We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
unprovability. pages40/43 to 41/44

Here is the simplest way to say that: G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G)
G if and only if G is unprovable in F

Because Gödel says:

14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof. page: 40/43

This proves that the above simplified expression sufficiently captures
the essence of his enormously more complex expression as long as it is
an epistemological antinomy.

?- G = not(provable(F, G)). % G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G)

When we test the above expression we find that it is not provable in the
Prolog formal system: (SWI-Prolog (threaded, 64 bits, version 7.6.4)

?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.

The key detail that Gödel leaves out is that G is not provable in F
because it forms an erroneous cyclic term that cannot be resolved in any
formal system what-so-ever.

G is unprovable.
Unprovable about what?
About being unprovable.
About being unprovable about what?
About being unprovable about being unprovable...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/3/23 12:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/3/2023 5:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/2/23 11:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2023 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/23 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/2023 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/23 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/2/2023 3:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, you don't understand what he is saying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And yes, the classical Godel G is based on the simple Liar's
>>>>>>>> Paradox antinomy, but that antinomy is TRANSFORMED to a Truth
>>>>>>>> Bearer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are not smart enough (or truthful enough) to know (or
>>>>>>> acknowledge
>>>>>>> this is impossible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try and show all of the detailed steps of exactly how the ordinary
>>>>>>> English Liar Paradox is transformed into a truth bearer and the
>>>>>>> incoherence (or dishonest dodge) of your answer will prove your
>>>>>>> lack of
>>>>>>> understanding (or dishonesty).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read Godels proof!!
>>>>>>
>>>>> You said that:
>>>>> "the simple Liar's Paradox antinomy, but that antinomy is
>>>>> TRANSFORMED to a Truth Bearer"
>>>>>
>>>>> Do it or admit that you don't know how.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the Truth Bearer is the statement "This statement is not Provable".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> This sentence is not provable.
>>> It is not provable about what?
>>
>> ???? You don't understand what a statement not being provable means?
>>
>> There exists no finite set of Semantic Connections which can take you
>> from your know set of Truth Makers to the Statement in the Theory.
>>
>> Note, maybe it might be more correct to say the statement is:
>>
>> "This statement is not provable in <the Theory>"
>>
>>
>>> It is not provable about being not provable.
>>> It is not provable about being not provable about what?
>>> It is not provable about being provable about being not provable.
>>>
>>> Not even a little brown truth bear.
>>
>> Because you are too stupid.
>>
>> Remember, this is the meaning of the statement in the Meta-Theory.
>>
>> The ACTUAL statement in the Theory, is:
>>
>> There does not exist a Natural Number g that satisfies <a specified
>> Primitive Recursive Relationship>
>>
>> The exact Primitive Recursive Relationship is developed per all the
>> Mathematics described in his Theory, and is likely totally over your
>> head.
>>
>> The key point is, that being a simple statement about the existance of
>> a number that satifies a computable relationship, it is provable that
>> the statement is a Truth Bearer, as such a number either does exist or
>> it doesn't, so the Law of the Excluded Middle holds for that statement.
>>
>> It turns out that for this particular relationship, no number exists
>> that matches the relationship, but it is impossible to actually prove
>> that except via an exhaustive search.
>>
>
> https://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/pj2943kt/Fall%202015/Promotion%20Application/Previous%20Years%20Article%2022%20Materials/godel-1931.pdf
>
>   We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
>   unprovability. pages40/43 to 41/44
>
> Here is the simplest way to say that: G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G)
> G if and only if G is unprovable in F

Which isn't the statement of G in the Theory

OVER simplication is an error

>
> Because Gödel says:
>
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof. page: 40/43

Right, IN THE META-THEORY, the statement G can be interpreted as a
statement derived by TRANSFORMING any similar statement. They ALL
become, in the theory, a statment like:

There does not exist a number g which satisfies <a specified Primative
Recursive Relationship>

The different antinomies lead to different Primative Recursive
Relationships, but all are truth bearers.

>
> This proves that the above simplified expression sufficiently captures
> the essence of his enormously more complex expression as long as it is
> an epistemological antinomy.

Nope, because that is only it he META THEORY.

I guess you don't understand how those w

>
> ?- G = not(provable(F, G)). % G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G)
>
> When we test the above expression we find that it is not provable in the
> Prolog formal system: (SWI-Prolog (threaded, 64 bits, version 7.6.4)

So?

Prolog can't prove a lot of things.

>
> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
> false.

Which just means it is possible that it uses logic above what prolog can
handle.

>
> The key detail that Gödel leaves out is that G is not provable in F
> because it forms an erroneous cyclic term that cannot be resolved in any
> formal system what-so-ever.
>
Nope, G in F has NO "cycle" at all.

You are just too stupid to understand that.

Can you PROVE that the statement, the ACTUAL statement, not your
erroneous one, has a cycle (in F)

Remember, the ACTUAL statement of G is that:

There does not exist a number g which satisfies <a specified Primative
Recursive Relationship>

Primative Recursive Relationships are just pure mathematical
computations that are always finite in computation for ALL possible input.

> G is unprovable.
> Unprovable about what?
> About being unprovable.
> About being unprovable about what?
> About being unprovable about being unprovable...
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence
>

Yep, you are just proving you are too stupid to understand the logic
that Godel is using.

On 1/3/2023 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/3/23 12:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/3/2023 5:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/2/23 11:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/2023 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/23 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/2023 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/2/23 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/2/2023 3:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, you don't understand what he is saying.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And yes, the classical Godel G is based on the simple Liar's
>>>>>>>>> Paradox antinomy, but that antinomy is TRANSFORMED to a Truth
>>>>>>>>> Bearer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are not smart enough (or truthful enough) to know (or
>>>>>>>> acknowledge
>>>>>>>> this is impossible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try and show all of the detailed steps of exactly how the ordinary
>>>>>>>> English Liar Paradox is transformed into a truth bearer and the
>>>>>>>> incoherence (or dishonest dodge) of your answer will prove your
>>>>>>>> lack of
>>>>>>>> understanding (or dishonesty).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Read Godels proof!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You said that:
>>>>>> "the simple Liar's Paradox antinomy, but that antinomy is
>>>>>> TRANSFORMED to a Truth Bearer"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do it or admit that you don't know how.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And the Truth Bearer is the statement "This statement is not
>>>>> Provable".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This sentence is not provable.
>>>> It is not provable about what?
>>>
>>> ???? You don't understand what a statement not being provable means?
>>>
>>> There exists no finite set of Semantic Connections which can take you
>>> from your know set of Truth Makers to the Statement in the Theory.
>>>
>>> Note, maybe it might be more correct to say the statement is:
>>>
>>> "This statement is not provable in <the Theory>"
>>>
>>>
>>>> It is not provable about being not provable.
>>>> It is not provable about being not provable about what?
>>>> It is not provable about being provable about being not provable.
>>>>
>>>> Not even a little brown truth bear.
>>>
>>> Because you are too stupid.
>>>
>>> Remember, this is the meaning of the statement in the Meta-Theory.
>>>
>>> The ACTUAL statement in the Theory, is:
>>>
>>> There does not exist a Natural Number g that satisfies <a specified
>>> Primitive Recursive Relationship>
>>>
>>> The exact Primitive Recursive Relationship is developed per all the
>>> Mathematics described in his Theory, and is likely totally over your
>>> head.
>>>
>>> The key point is, that being a simple statement about the existance
>>> of a number that satifies a computable relationship, it is provable
>>> that the statement is a Truth Bearer, as such a number either does
>>> exist or it doesn't, so the Law of the Excluded Middle holds for that
>>> statement.
>>>
>>> It turns out that for this particular relationship, no number exists
>>> that matches the relationship, but it is impossible to actually prove
>>> that except via an exhaustive search.
>>>
>>
>> https://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/pj2943kt/Fall%202015/Promotion%20Application/Previous%20Years%20Article%2022%20Materials/godel-1931.pdf
>>
>>    We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
>>    unprovability. pages40/43 to 41/44
>>
>> Here is the simplest way to say that: G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G)
>> G if and only if G is unprovable in F
>
> Which isn't the statement of G in the Theory
>
> OVER simplication is an error
>

14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof. page: 40/43

*It is an epistemological antinomy thus 100% perfectly meets the spec*

>>
>> Because Gödel says:
>>
>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof. page: 40/43
>
> Right, IN THE META-THEORY, the statement G can be interpreted as a
> statement derived by TRANSFORMING any similar statement. They ALL
> become, in the theory, a statment like:
>
> There does not exist a number g which satisfies <a specified Primative
> Recursive Relationship>
>

Now you are adding back in the purely extraneous complexity of
artificially contriving a provability predicate in a language that is
woefully insufficiently expressive for this purpose so we go back to the
minimal essence of: G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G)

> The different antinomies lead to different Primative Recursive
> Relationships, but all are truth bearers.
>
>>
>> This proves that the above simplified expression sufficiently captures
>> the essence of his enormously more complex expression as long as it is
>> an epistemological antinomy.
>
> Nope, because that is only it he META THEORY.
>

G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G) // is the theory
⊢G // here is the meta-theory

"This sentence in not true" // is the theory

// this is the meta-theory
This sentence in not true: "This sentence in not true"

In both cases the sentence in the theory is not a truth bearer and the
sentence in the mate-theory correctly recognizes this.

> I guess you don't understand how those w
>
>>
>> ?- G = not(provable(F, G)). % G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G)
>>
>> When we test the above expression we find that it is not provable in
>> the Prolog formal system: (SWI-Prolog (threaded, 64 bits, version 7.6.4)
>
> So?
>
> Prolog can't prove a lot of things.

None-the-less it correctly determines that the minimal essence of G is
not a truth bearer.

>>
>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
>> false.
>
> Which just means it is possible that it uses logic above what prolog can
> handle.
>

Not at all 2 in one billion IQ. No correct formal system in the world
can possibly correctly evaluate any expression of language that never
reaches a truth value because the expression is not a truth bearer.

From the best of my recollection an
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine can handle infinite proofs
that are truth bearers.

>>
>> The key detail that Gödel leaves out is that G is not provable in F
>> because it forms an erroneous cyclic term that cannot be resolved in
>> any formal system what-so-ever.
>>
> Nope, G in F has NO "cycle" at all.

I already proved that the minimal essence of G has a cycle.

>
> You are just too stupid to understand that.
>

I am smarter about these things than you are.

>
> Can you PROVE that the statement, the ACTUAL statement, not your
> erroneous one, has a cycle (in F)
>
> Remember, the ACTUAL statement of G is that:
>
> There does not exist a number g which satisfies <a specified Primative
> Recursive Relationship>
>
> Primative Recursive Relationships are just pure mathematical
> computations that are always finite in computation for ALL possible input.
>
>
>> G is unprovable.
>> Unprovable about what?
>> About being unprovable.
>> About being unprovable about what?
>> About being unprovable about being unprovable...
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence
>>
>
> Yep, you are just proving you are too stupid to understand the logic
> that Godel is using.

It is not that I am too stupid, it is that many decades of C++ software
engineering has taught me that the simplest possible solution is best.

This makes the minimal essence of G, the best G that can be:
G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G)

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/3/23 11:51 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/3/2023 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/3/23 12:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/3/2023 5:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/23 11:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/2023 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/23 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/2/2023 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/2/23 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/2023 3:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you don't understand what he is saying.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And yes, the classical Godel G is based on the simple Liar's
>>>>>>>>>> Paradox antinomy, but that antinomy is TRANSFORMED to a Truth
>>>>>>>>>> Bearer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are not smart enough (or truthful enough) to know (or
>>>>>>>>> acknowledge
>>>>>>>>> this is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try and show all of the detailed steps of exactly how the ordinary
>>>>>>>>> English Liar Paradox is transformed into a truth bearer and the
>>>>>>>>> incoherence (or dishonest dodge) of your answer will prove your
>>>>>>>>> lack of
>>>>>>>>> understanding (or dishonesty).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Read Godels proof!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You said that:
>>>>>>> "the simple Liar's Paradox antinomy, but that antinomy is
>>>>>>> TRANSFORMED to a Truth Bearer"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do it or admit that you don't know how.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the Truth Bearer is the statement "This statement is not
>>>>>> Provable".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This sentence is not provable.
>>>>> It is not provable about what?
>>>>
>>>> ???? You don't understand what a statement not being provable means?
>>>>
>>>> There exists no finite set of Semantic Connections which can take
>>>> you from your know set of Truth Makers to the Statement in the Theory.
>>>>
>>>> Note, maybe it might be more correct to say the statement is:
>>>>
>>>> "This statement is not provable in <the Theory>"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It is not provable about being not provable.
>>>>> It is not provable about being not provable about what?
>>>>> It is not provable about being provable about being not provable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not even a little brown truth bear.
>>>>
>>>> Because you are too stupid.
>>>>
>>>> Remember, this is the meaning of the statement in the Meta-Theory.
>>>>
>>>> The ACTUAL statement in the Theory, is:
>>>>
>>>> There does not exist a Natural Number g that satisfies <a specified
>>>> Primitive Recursive Relationship>
>>>>
>>>> The exact Primitive Recursive Relationship is developed per all the
>>>> Mathematics described in his Theory, and is likely totally over your
>>>> head.
>>>>
>>>> The key point is, that being a simple statement about the existance
>>>> of a number that satifies a computable relationship, it is provable
>>>> that the statement is a Truth Bearer, as such a number either does
>>>> exist or it doesn't, so the Law of the Excluded Middle holds for
>>>> that statement.
>>>>
>>>> It turns out that for this particular relationship, no number exists
>>>> that matches the relationship, but it is impossible to actually
>>>> prove that except via an exhaustive search.
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/pj2943kt/Fall%202015/Promotion%20Application/Previous%20Years%20Article%2022%20Materials/godel-1931.pdf
>>>
>>>    We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
>>>    unprovability. pages40/43 to 41/44
>>>
>>> Here is the simplest way to say that: G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G)
>>> G if and only if G is unprovable in F
>>
>> Which isn't the statement of G in the Theory
>>
>> OVER simplication is an error
>>
>
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>    undecidability proof. page: 40/43
>
> *It is an epistemological antinomy thus 100% perfectly meets the spec*