On 1/6/2023 3:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2023 2:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/23 3:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/23 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 1:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 12:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 1:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 11:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and since the Godel Sentence G says that there does
>>>>>>>>>>> not exist a number g that meets a specific primitive
>>>>>>>>>>> recursive relationship, and we can show that:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 0 does not meet that relationship
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 does not meet that relationship
>>>>>>>>>>> 2 does not meet that relationship
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> n does not meet that relationship (from the meta-theory)
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and in the meta-theory we can show that in the theory we
>>>>>>>>>>> could continue this sequence forever (from the structure of
>>>>>>>>>>> that specific primative recursive relatonship), we thus have
>>>>>>>>>>> an INFINITE set of truth persevering operations that show
>>>>>>>>>>> that G is True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since a Proof is a finite set of truth perserving operations,
>>>>>>>>>>> we do not have a proof of G in the Theory, thus, we can say
>>>>>>>>>>> that the statement G is True in F, but not Provable in F.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If G is not provable in F then there is a sequence of truth
>>>>>>>>>> preserving
>>>>>>>>>> operations in F that proves that G is not provable in F,
>>>>>>>>>> otherwise G is not true in F.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, not being provable and not being True are different things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If there is no finite or infinite sequence of truth preserving
>>>>>>>> operations in F that proves that G is not provable in F then
>>>>>>>> there is no
>>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G to its truth maker in F, thus G
>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>> true in F.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The statement "G is Not Provable in F" and the statement "G is
>>>>>>> True in F" are different statments, so are not based on the same
>>>>>>> set of operations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None-the-less if there is no semantic connection in F from G in F
>>>>>> to its
>>>>>> truth maker in F then G is not true in F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ** From the Truht Makers to the Statement **
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep saying it backwards, truth FLOWS from the Truth Makers TO
>>>>> the statements, that is the nature of Truth Perserving. You can't
>>>>> "preserve" something from a posistion that it hasn't been
>>>>> established from yet.
>>>>>
>>>> It we want to show that {cats} are {living things}
>>>> and we know that {cats} <are> {animals} and
>>>> {animals} <are> {living things} then
>>>>
>>>> {cats} are {living things} must be connected to its truth maker
>>>> {cats} <are> {animals} and {animals} <are> {living things}
>>>> Prolog calls this back-chaining.
>>>
>>> Right, not "BACK" as you are tracing the chain from the END to the
>>> begining.
>>>
>>
>> When I say {truth maker} I mean the semantic connection from an
>> analytical expression of language to the key natural language axioms
>> that make this expression true.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Backward chaining (or backward reasoning) is an inference method
>>>> described colloquially as working backward from the goal. It is used
>>>> in automated theorem provers, inference engines, proof assistants,
>>>> and other artificial intelligence applications.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_chaining
>>>
>>> Right, so you are looking BACKWARDS along the chain that make the
>>> statement true.
>>>
>>
>> When I say {truth maker} I mean the semantic connection from an
>> analytical expression of language to the key natural language axioms
>> that make this expression true.
>
> So what is the difference between the words "semantic connection" and
> {Truth Maker}
>
> making up terminology is jsut a sign of being deceptive.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> The conclusion {cats} are {living things}
>>>> is validated on the basis of the facts
>>>>   {cats} <are> {animals}
>>>>   {animals} <are> {living things}
>>>> that derive it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, so the chain of statements START at the initial Truth Makers,
>>>
>>> {cats} <are> {animals}
>>> and
>>> {animals} <are> {living things}
>>>
>>
>> No when the question is:
>> Is this expression true: {cats} <are> {living things}
>
> Right, so how do you SHOW that.
>>
>> In the case we are starting with {cats} <are> {living things}
>> and from this working backwards to its natural language axioms.
>>
>
> Right, but you don't actually SHOW anything until you start with know
> ntrue statements and work along the chain of valid logical inferences to
> reach the conclusion.
>

Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be pure
gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any semantic
meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are
any.

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

On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:

> Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be pure
> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any semantic
> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are
> any.
>

If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so lost.

You will have no idea if any of the things you are think of are actually
true until you tie up all your connections to known truth.

Much better to start from what is know, and see what you can get to from
there.

One big advantage is that maybe you can get close, and see that your
original sentence was slightly off, based on what you can actually prove.

Starting at the end and going backwards, give no option for that.

Do you actually have an sources for a real formal proof that has been
published in a quality source that works the way you are talking?

That argues startring from the conclusion and works its way to the known
truths.

On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>> Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be pure
>> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any semantic
>> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are
>> any.
>>
>
> If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so lost.
>
That is the way that inference works.
To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its natural
language axioms if there are any. All inference engines work this way.

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

On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be pure
>>> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any semantic
>>> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are
>>> any.
>>>
>>
>> If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so lost.
>>
> That is the way that inference works.
> To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its natural
> language axioms if there are any. All inference engines work this way.
>

Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.

Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if the
result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.

But after finding the path, the actual PROOF that path is correct
derives from the FORWARD traversal of the chain.

I guess you only understand how the simple system work.

On 1/6/2023 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be pure
>>>> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any semantic
>>>> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are
>>>> any.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so lost.
>>>
>> That is the way that inference works.
>> To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its natural
>> language axioms if there are any. All inference engines work this way.
>>
>
> Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.
>
> Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if the
> result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.
>

The human mind works by back-chained inference [rules] from an
expression of language to the [facts] that make it true in the same way
that Prolog uses [rules] and [facts].

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

On 1/6/23 6:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be pure
>>>>> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any
>>>>> semantic
>>>>> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are
>>>>> any.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so lost.
>>>>
>>> That is the way that inference works.
>>> To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its natural
>>> language axioms if there are any. All inference engines work this way.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.
>>
>> Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if the
>> result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.
>>
>
> The human mind works by back-chained inference [rules] from an
> expression of language to the [facts] that make it true in the same way
> that Prolog uses [rules] and [facts].
>

Nope, maybe yours only does because it is too simple. REAL minds work
both ways, looking for likely paths with back tracing, and then proving
resutls by the forward chain.

Maybe that is why you have so much trouble understanding people, Your
mind misses so much because it can only go backwards.

I will remind you, you still haven't shown an example where someone has
actually published a proof the way you claim they must work.

I guess you got caught in your lie.

On 1/6/2023 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 6:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2023 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be
>>>>>> pure
>>>>>> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any
>>>>>> semantic
>>>>>> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are
>>>>>> any.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so
>>>>> lost.
>>>>>
>>>> That is the way that inference works.
>>>> To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its
>>>> natural language axioms if there are any. All inference engines work
>>>> this way.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.
>>>
>>> Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if the
>>> result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.
>>>
>>
>> The human mind works by back-chained inference [rules] from an
>> expression of language to the [facts] that make it true in the same way
>> that Prolog uses [rules] and [facts].
>>
>
> Nope, maybe yours only does because it is too simple. REAL minds work
> both ways,

When determining if X is true one must start with X, alternatively one
could start with each and every element of the set of all knowledge and
stop when X is encountered.

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

On 1/6/23 6:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 6:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2023 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be
>>>>>>> pure
>>>>>>> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any
>>>>>>> semantic
>>>>>>> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are
>>>>>>> any.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so
>>>>>> lost.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That is the way that inference works.
>>>>> To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its
>>>>> natural language axioms if there are any. All inference engines
>>>>> work this way.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if the
>>>> result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The human mind works by back-chained inference [rules] from an
>>> expression of language to the [facts] that make it true in the same way
>>> that Prolog uses [rules] and [facts].
>>>
>>
>> Nope, maybe yours only does because it is too simple. REAL minds work
>> both ways,
>
> When determining if X is true one must start with X, alternatively one
> could start with each and every element of the set of all knowledge and
> stop when X is encountered.
>

And when you actaully WRITE a proof, that is what you do. You start with
the NEEDED elements of the set of knowledge, and moving step by step you
add elements to that set of knowledge, until at the end, you add the
desired X.

If you start with X and work backwards, you have no idea if you are on
an actual "Truth" path until ALL its requirements have reached
knowledge. Then you need to go back up, and mark those elements, and
ONLY those element that have been proven (and not any side paths that
didn't pan out) to the original statement to prove.

You also need to do that forward path to show that you actually DID find
truth basis for ALL the needed paths of that back track.

You are confusing the method of locating the path, from the method
actually used to PROVE the path.

On 1/6/2023 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 6:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2023 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/23 6:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could
>>>>>>>> be pure
>>>>>>>> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any
>>>>>>>> semantic
>>>>>>>> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> any.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so
>>>>>>> lost.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is the way that inference works.
>>>>>> To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its
>>>>>> natural language axioms if there are any. All inference engines
>>>>>> work this way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if the
>>>>> result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The human mind works by back-chained inference [rules] from an
>>>> expression of language to the [facts] that make it true in the same way
>>>> that Prolog uses [rules] and [facts].
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, maybe yours only does because it is too simple. REAL minds work
>>> both ways,
>>
>> When determining if X is true one must start with X, alternatively one
>> could start with each and every element of the set of all knowledge and
>> stop when X is encountered.
>>
>
> And when you actaully WRITE a proof, that is what you do. You start with
> the NEEDED elements of the set of knowledge, and moving step by step you
> add elements to that set of knowledge, until at the end, you add the
> desired X.
>
> If you start with X and work backwards, you have no idea if you are on
> an actual "Truth" path until ALL its requirements have reached
> knowledge.

Not at all. Most of the elements of the set of knowledge are not of the
type that have any connection to X. Back-chained inference is how
inference really works. If there are no [rules] that connect X to
[facts] then X is not true.

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

On 1/6/23 7:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 6:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2023 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/23 6:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could
>>>>>>>>> be pure
>>>>>>>>> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any
>>>>>>>>> semantic
>>>>>>>>> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if
>>>>>>>>> there are
>>>>>>>>> any.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are
>>>>>>>> so lost.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is the way that inference works.
>>>>>>> To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its
>>>>>>> natural language axioms if there are any. All inference engines
>>>>>>> work this way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if
>>>>>> the result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The human mind works by back-chained inference [rules] from an
>>>>> expression of language to the [facts] that make it true in the same
>>>>> way
>>>>> that Prolog uses [rules] and [facts].
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, maybe yours only does because it is too simple. REAL minds
>>>> work both ways,
>>>
>>> When determining if X is true one must start with X, alternatively one
>>> could start with each and every element of the set of all knowledge and
>>> stop when X is encountered.
>>>
>>
>> And when you actaully WRITE a proof, that is what you do. You start
>> with the NEEDED elements of the set of knowledge, and moving step by
>> step you add elements to that set of knowledge, until at the end, you
>> add the desired X.
>>
>> If you start with X and work backwards, you have no idea if you are on
>> an actual "Truth" path until ALL its requirements have reached knowledge.
>
> Not at all. Most of the elements of the set of knowledge are not of the
> type that have any connection to X. Back-chained inference is how
> inference really works. If there are no [rules] that connect X to
> [facts] then X is not true.
>

Nope, since you haven't actually provided a published proof that works
this way, I am calling you LIAR.

Yes, back tracking is a valid SEARCH methodology to help find what
forward path you want to take.

The problem with back tracking is while only a small percentage of the
knowledge would be part of the forward path, unless you are working in a
strictly finite logic system (which seems to be the only ones you
understand) there are still a lot of possible back connections, most of
which are dead ends.

For instance, if we look at the sentence we started with, "{cat} <are>
{living creatures}", in our actual knowledge base of {cat} and of
{living animals} there are LOTS of optios.

As an example, if we actually try to apply actual backtracking to the
sentence of {cat} <are> {living createures}, in our database of
knowledge, presumably this statement isn't just enterer, or is there any
statments of the form if A then {cat} <are> {living creatures}, so we
need to find something with the right form, and the best we likely have
is the subclassing rule,

A <are> B & B <are> C -> A <are> C

So we can match this rule to {cat} <are> {Living Creatures}

now we need to search through our ENTIRE knowledge base for ALL our
statements about {cat} and ALL our statements about {living creature}
and see if there is a common connection.

In YOUR simple case it was, but if our base knowledge set just had {cat}
<are> {Fallide} and then {Falide} <are> {order Carnivora}, then {order
Carnivora} <are> {Mammals}, then {Mammals} <are> {Vertebrate}, then
{Vertebrate} <are> {Animales}, then {Animals} <are> {Living Beings}.

And if we also have a lot of other knowledge about these various
classifications, we still have a very large search space to scan
through. You might even start trying to start filling in your search
from the statement that {Plants} <are> {Living things} and we know that
such a path won't get us to {cats}.

Much better to actually LOOK at the goal senctence, see the type of
classification we are looking at, then starting at cats, use just THAT
type of classification, to build the full chain.

You have again made yourself dumb by only looking at simple cases and
assuming you can extrapolte to the more complicated.

Back Tracking is most used as a PART of the solution process in SIMPLE
classifcation type systems.

Note, it often has problems when you hit statements that say "Not x",
unless you have significant knowledge list about not X,

On 1/6/2023 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 7:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2023 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/23 6:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2023 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/23 6:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could
>>>>>>>>>> be pure
>>>>>>>>>> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any
>>>>>>>>>> semantic
>>>>>>>>>> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if
>>>>>>>>>> there are
>>>>>>>>>> any.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are
>>>>>>>>> so lost.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is the way that inference works.
>>>>>>>> To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its
>>>>>>>> natural language axioms if there are any. All inference engines
>>>>>>>> work this way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if
>>>>>>> the result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The human mind works by back-chained inference [rules] from an
>>>>>> expression of language to the [facts] that make it true in the
>>>>>> same way
>>>>>> that Prolog uses [rules] and [facts].
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, maybe yours only does because it is too simple. REAL minds
>>>>> work both ways,
>>>>
>>>> When determining if X is true one must start with X, alternatively one
>>>> could start with each and every element of the set of all knowledge and
>>>> stop when X is encountered.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And when you actaully WRITE a proof, that is what you do. You start
>>> with the NEEDED elements of the set of knowledge, and moving step by
>>> step you add elements to that set of knowledge, until at the end, you
>>> add the desired X.
>>>
>>> If you start with X and work backwards, you have no idea if you are
>>> on an actual "Truth" path until ALL its requirements have reached
>>> knowledge.
>>
>> Not at all. Most of the elements of the set of knowledge are not of the
>> type that have any connection to X. Back-chained inference is how
>> inference really works. If there are no [rules] that connect X to
>> [facts] then X is not true.
>>
>
>
> Nope, since you haven't actually provided a published proof that works
> this way, I am calling you LIAR.
>
> Yes, back tracking is a valid SEARCH methodology to help find what
> forward path you want to take.
>
> The problem with back tracking is while only a small percentage of the
> knowledge would be part of the forward path, unless you are working in a
> strictly finite logic system (which seems to be the only ones you
> understand)

That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you cannot is
your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the point
so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible fools.

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

On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:

> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you cannot is
> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the point
> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible fools.
>

Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an epistemological
antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know what that is.

Why do you say that we actually DERIVE Truth starting with the unknown?
To generate Truth you MUST start the proof with the KNOWN.
Answer: Because you don't understand how proofs work.

YOU are the one making the extraordinary claim that all the word is
doing logic wrong, but you can't even get the basic right.

YOU FAIL.

On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you cannot is
>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the point
>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible fools.
>>
>
> Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an epistemological
> antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know what that is.
>

Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.

Prolog correctly determines that there are no [rules] that link self-
referential Epistemological antinomies to [facts]. This is not any
limitation of Prolog it is the limitation of Epistemological antinomies.

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

On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you cannot is
>>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the point
>>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible fools.
>>>
>>
>> Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an epistemological
>> antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know what that is.
>>
>
> Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.

Then why do you claim a sentence has "Unresolvable Contradiction" when
the statement has a proven Truth Value.

>
> Prolog correctly determines that there are no [rules] that link self-
> referential Epistemological antinomies to [facts]. This is not any
> limitation of Prolog it is the limitation of Epistemological antinomies.
>

So, what ACTUAL epistimologal antinomy is there in the statement:

G: there does not exist a number g which satisfies <specific Primative
Recursive Relaitonship>

Which you are labling as an Epistimological Antinomy.

Note, a "Simplified Version" of a statement with a different truth value
than the original is NOT a faithful simplificaiton of the statement.

If you read the paper you posted, that IS the essence of Godel Sentence
is "The Theory".

THe <spcific Primative Recursive Relationship> is fully computable in
the Theory for any number N, and will give the exact same answer in the
Meta-Theory.

In the Meta-Theory, we have the ability to compress the infinite number
of tests needed to show that no number satisfies it to a finite proof,
but that just proves that no such number exists.

And then, because of the interpreation that the Mata-Theory gives to the
<specific Primative Recursive Relationship> we can show that this also
means that there can not be a proof in F of this fact, as a proof in F
of that fact would actually generate a number, by fhe rules of the
Meta-Theory, that would satisfy that relationship in BOTH the Theory and
Meta-Theory, and since he already proved that no such number could
exist, no such proof can exist.

The is NO Epistimelogical Antinomy present.

Yes, he STARTED with a statement that was one, but TRANSFORMED it into a
DIFFERENT statement that isn't one (by making it no longer talk about
its Truth, but it Provability) and then in the META-THEORY used it to
construct that <specific Primative Recursvie Relationship> which can be
put into F unchanged, since the relationship itself uses nothing of the
Meta-Theory, so BY DEFINITION of the construction of the Meta-Theory,
moves unchanged.

Note, by these rules, it is also impossible for a statement if F that IS
a truth bearer, to become an Epistemological Antinomy in the Meta Theory
if it doesn't somehow mention something in the Meta Theory, which this
relationship doesn't, as it is just math.

On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you cannot is
>>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the point
>>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible fools.
>>>
>>
>> Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an epistemological
>> antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know what that is.
>>
>
> Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.
>
> Prolog correctly determines that there are no [rules] that link self-
> referential Epistemological antinomies to [facts]. This is not any
> limitation of Prolog it is the limitation of Epistemological antinomies.
>

Challange:

You claim you can prove this in a finite number of steps.

DO SO.

Rememver to QUOTE the exact rules and Definition you are using.

Remember, they must be generally accepted in the field of Logic.

Thus, you CAN'T use "Unprovable means not True", or "True Means
Probable" as a Rule, because that is your claimed conclusion.

On 1/6/2023 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
>>>> cannot is
>>>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the point
>>>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible fools.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an epistemological
>>> antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know what that is.
>>>
>>
>> Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
>> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.
>
> Then why do you claim a sentence has "Unresolvable Contradiction" when
> the statement has a proven Truth Value.
>
The sentence that states that G is an "Unresolvable Contradiction" does
have a truth value.

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

On 1/6/23 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
>>>>> cannot is
>>>>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the
>>>>> point
>>>>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible
>>>>> fools.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
>>>> epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know
>>>> what that is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
>>> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.
>>
>> Then why do you claim a sentence has "Unresolvable Contradiction" when
>> the statement has a proven Truth Value.
>>
> The sentence that states that G is an "Unresolvable Contradiction" does
> have a truth value.
>

So how does the fact that the sentence "The sentenct that states that G
is an Unresolvable Contradiction" has a truth value (which happens to be
FALSE, since G does NOT have an Unresovlabele Contradiction) prove that
G has an Unresolvable Contradiction.

Apparently you still don't know what a Unresolvable Truth Value, aka an
Epistimological Antinomy means.

A True statement can not be an Epistemological Antinomy, as its truth
value is resolved.

On 1/6/2023 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
>>>> cannot is
>>>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the point
>>>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible fools.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an epistemological
>>> antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know what that is.
>>>
>>
>> Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
>> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.
>>
>> Prolog correctly determines that there are no [rules] that link self-
>> referential Epistemological antinomies to [facts]. This is not any
>> limitation of Prolog it is the limitation of Epistemological antinomies.
>>
>
> Challange:
>
> You claim you can prove this in a finite number of steps.
>
> DO SO.
>

You and Prolog have both agreed that this sentence:
"This sentence is not true" has zero finite of infinite connections to
natural language axiom truth makers.

I have been studying the pathological self-reference sub type of
epistemological antinomies for 25 years. It has been the primary focus
of my primary research.

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

On 1/6/23 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
>>>>> cannot is
>>>>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the
>>>>> point
>>>>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible
>>>>> fools.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
>>>> epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know
>>>> what that is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
>>> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.
>>>
>>> Prolog correctly determines that there are no [rules] that link self-
>>> referential Epistemological antinomies to [facts]. This is not any
>>> limitation of Prolog it is the limitation of Epistemological antinomies.
>>>
>>
>> Challange:
>>
>> You claim you can prove this in a finite number of steps.
>>
>> DO SO.
>>
>
> You and Prolog have both agreed that this sentence:
> "This sentence is not true" has zero finite of infinite connections to
> natural language axiom truth makers.

Yes, but that isn't the sentnece in question.

The Sentence is question is:

G: There exists no natural number g that satisfies a <specific Primative
Recursive Relationship>

You didn't even try to do the "simplificed" version (which isn't what it
actually is) of

"This statement can not be Proven"

So, you have done NOTHING, because you know NOTHING.

>
> I have been studying the pathological self-reference sub type of
> epistemological antinomies for 25 years. It has been the primary focus
> of my primary research.
>

So, you can;t do it.

Good to know.

When asked to actually do it, your answer is to just ruffle your feathers.

BLUFF CALLED.

On 1/6/2023 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2023 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
>>>>>> cannot is
>>>>>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the
>>>>>> point
>>>>>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible
>>>>>> fools.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
>>>>> epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know
>>>>> what that is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
>>>> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.
>>>
>>> Then why do you claim a sentence has "Unresolvable Contradiction"
>>> when the statement has a proven Truth Value.
>>>
>> The sentence that states that G is an "Unresolvable Contradiction" does
>> have a truth value.
>>
>
> So how does the fact that the sentence "The sentenct that states that G
> is an Unresolvable Contradiction" has a truth value (which happens to be
> FALSE, since G does NOT have an Unresovlabele Contradiction) prove that
> G has an Unresolvable Contradiction.
>
> Apparently you still don't know what a Unresolvable Truth Value, aka an
> Epistimological Antinomy means.
>
> A True statement can not be an Epistemological Antinomy, as its truth
> value is resolved.

Yet when another different sentence correctly states that a sentence has
an unresolvable truth value, because it is an epistemological antinomy,
this other sentence is true.

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

On 1/6/23 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2023 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
>>>>>>> cannot is
>>>>>>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the
>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible
>>>>>>> fools.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
>>>>>> epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know
>>>>>> what that is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
>>>>> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite
>>>>> proof.
>>>>
>>>> Then why do you claim a sentence has "Unresolvable Contradiction"
>>>> when the statement has a proven Truth Value.
>>>>
>>> The sentence that states that G is an "Unresolvable Contradiction" does
>>> have a truth value.
>>>
>>
>> So how does the fact that the sentence "The sentenct that states that
>> G is an Unresolvable Contradiction" has a truth value (which happens
>> to be FALSE, since G does NOT have an Unresovlabele Contradiction)
>> prove that G has an Unresolvable Contradiction.
>>
>> Apparently you still don't know what a Unresolvable Truth Value, aka
>> an Epistimological Antinomy means.
>>
>> A True statement can not be an Epistemological Antinomy, as its truth
>> value is resolved.
>
> Yet when another different sentence correctly states that a sentence has
> an unresolvable truth value, because it is an epistemological antinomy,
> this other sentence is true.
>
>

Which sentence is that?

Only YOUR Claim, which you haven't actually presented any proof.

You are just proving that you don't understand what you are saying.

A statement doesn't become unresolved just because of an UNPROVED
statement that claims that it is unresolved.

On 1/6/2023 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2023 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
>>>>>> cannot is
>>>>>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the
>>>>>> point
>>>>>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible
>>>>>> fools.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
>>>>> epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know
>>>>> what that is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
>>>> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.
>>>>
>>>> Prolog correctly determines that there are no [rules] that link self-
>>>> referential Epistemological antinomies to [facts]. This is not any
>>>> limitation of Prolog it is the limitation of Epistemological
>>>> antinomies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Challange:
>>>
>>> You claim you can prove this in a finite number of steps.
>>>
>>> DO SO.
>>>
>>
>> You and Prolog have both agreed that this sentence:
>> "This sentence is not true" has zero finite of infinite connections to
>> natural language axiom truth makers.
>
> Yes, but that isn't the sentnece in question.
>
> The Sentence is question is:
>
> G: There exists no natural number g that satisfies a <specific Primative
> Recursive Relationship>

That has never been the question that I have been talking about
this is the one that I have been talking about: G = ¬(F ⊢ G)

?- 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.

>
> You didn't even try to do the "simplificed" version (which isn't what it
> actually is) of
>
> "This statement can not be Proven"
>

"This statement can not be Proven"
Proven about what?
Proven about being proven.
Proven about being proven about what?
Proven about being proven about being proven.

>
> So, you have done NOTHING, because you know NOTHING.
>
>>
>> I have been studying the pathological self-reference sub type of
>> epistemological antinomies for 25 years. It has been the primary focus
>> of my primary research.
>>
>
> So, you can;t do it.
>
>
> Good to know.
>
> When asked to actually do it, your answer is to just ruffle your feathers.
>
> BLUFF CALLED.
>
>

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

On 1/6/2023 10:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2023 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/23 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2023 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
>>>>>>>> cannot is
>>>>>>>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for
>>>>>>>> the point
>>>>>>>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible
>>>>>>>> fools.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
>>>>>>> epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know
>>>>>>> what that is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
>>>>>> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite
>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why do you claim a sentence has "Unresolvable Contradiction"
>>>>> when the statement has a proven Truth Value.
>>>>>
>>>> The sentence that states that G is an "Unresolvable Contradiction" does
>>>> have a truth value.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So how does the fact that the sentence "The sentenct that states that
>>> G is an Unresolvable Contradiction" has a truth value (which happens
>>> to be FALSE, since G does NOT have an Unresovlabele Contradiction)
>>> prove that G has an Unresolvable Contradiction.
>>>
>>> Apparently you still don't know what a Unresolvable Truth Value, aka
>>> an Epistimological Antinomy means.
>>>
>>> A True statement can not be an Epistemological Antinomy, as its truth
>>> value is resolved.
>>
>> Yet when another different sentence correctly states that a sentence has
>> an unresolvable truth value, because it is an epistemological antinomy,
>> this other sentence is true.
>>
>>
>
> Which sentence is that?

This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"

>
> Only YOUR Claim, which you haven't actually presented any proof.
>

Complete proof is provided above:
The inner sentence is not true because it is an epistemological antinomy
of the pathological self-reference type making it self contradictory and
thus not a truth bearer.

The outer sentence claims that the inner sentence us not true making the
outer sentence true.

> You are just proving that you don't understand what you are saying.
>

I am just proving that you are pretending to not understand what I am
saying.

> A statement doesn't become unresolved just because of an UNPROVED
> statement that claims that it is unresolved.
>

The unresolved inner sentence makes the outer sentence resolved.

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

On 1/7/23 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2023 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
>>>>>>> cannot is
>>>>>>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the
>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible
>>>>>>> fools.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
>>>>>> epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know
>>>>>> what that is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
>>>>> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite
>>>>> proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prolog correctly determines that there are no [rules] that link self-
>>>>> referential Epistemological antinomies to [facts]. This is not any
>>>>> limitation of Prolog it is the limitation of Epistemological
>>>>> antinomies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Challange:
>>>>
>>>> You claim you can prove this in a finite number of steps.
>>>>
>>>> DO SO.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You and Prolog have both agreed that this sentence:
>>> "This sentence is not true" has zero finite of infinite connections to
>>> natural language axiom truth makers.
>>
>> Yes, but that isn't the sentnece in question.
>>
>> The Sentence is question is:
>>
>> G: There exists no natural number g that satisfies a <specific
>> Primative Recursive Relationship>
>
> That has never been the question that I have been talking about
> this is the one that I have been talking about: G = ¬(F ⊢ G)

But it should be, as that is Godel Sentence.

So, you admit to using the Strawman fallicy?

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

Which is NOT G in F, G in F is what I quoted above.

>
> 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 lots of things, because it can only support a
simpler logic system than Mathematcs.

Your failure to understand that shows your stupidity.

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

Right, which actually proves NOTHING.

>>
>> You didn't even try to do the "simplificed" version (which isn't what
>> it actually is) of
>>
>> "This statement can not be Proven"
>>
>
> "This statement can not be Proven"
> Proven about what?
> Proven about being proven.
> Proven about being proven about what?
> Proven about being proven about being proven.

So, that isn't a proof, is it,

You clearly don't understand what a proof actually is

>
>
>>
>> So, you have done NOTHING, because you know NOTHING.
>>
>>>
>>> I have been studying the pathological self-reference sub type of
>>> epistemological antinomies for 25 years. It has been the primary focus
>>> of my primary research.
>>>
>>
>> So, you can;t do it.
>>
>>
>> Good to know.
>>
>> When asked to actually do it, your answer is to just ruffle your
>> feathers.
>>
>> BLUFF CALLED.
>>
>>
>

Sounds like you folded to the call.

On 1/7/23 11:10 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 10:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2023 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/23 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2023 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
>>>>>>>>> cannot is
>>>>>>>>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for
>>>>>>>>> the point
>>>>>>>>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to
>>>>>>>>> gullible fools.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually
>>>>>>>> know what that is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a
>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite
>>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why do you claim a sentence has "Unresolvable Contradiction"
>>>>>> when the statement has a proven Truth Value.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The sentence that states that G is an "Unresolvable Contradiction"
>>>>> does
>>>>> have a truth value.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So how does the fact that the sentence "The sentenct that states
>>>> that G is an Unresolvable Contradiction" has a truth value (which
>>>> happens to be FALSE, since G does NOT have an Unresovlabele
>>>> Contradiction) prove that G has an Unresolvable Contradiction.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently you still don't know what a Unresolvable Truth Value, aka
>>>> an Epistimological Antinomy means.
>>>>
>>>> A True statement can not be an Epistemological Antinomy, as its
>>>> truth value is resolved.
>>>
>>> Yet when another different sentence correctly states that a sentence has
>>> an unresolvable truth value, because it is an epistemological antinomy,
>>> this other sentence is true.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Which sentence is that?
>
> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"

But that isn't the sentence being directly used.

So, STRAWMAN FALLACY.

>
>>
>> Only YOUR Claim, which you haven't actually presented any proof.
>>
>
> Complete proof is provided above:
> The inner sentence is not true because it is an epistemological antinomy
> of the pathological self-reference type making it self contradictory and
> thus not a truth bearer.
>
> The outer sentence claims that the inner sentence us not true making the
> outer sentence true.

So, you have proved the truth of the WRONG sentence.

FAIL.

Can you show that:

G (in F): There does not exist a number g in the Natural Numbers that
satisfies a <specific Primative Recursive Relationship>

or even

Interpretaiton of G in F in the meta-Theory:

G states that there is no proof of G in the Theory.

>
>> You are just proving that you don't understand what you are saying.
>>
>
> I am just proving that you are pretending to not understand what I am
> saying.

No, YOU don't seem to understand what you are saying, since you claim to
be talking about Godel's G, but then don't talk about Godel's G but
something else.

>
>> A statement doesn't become unresolved just because of an UNPROVED
>> statement that claims that it is unresolved.
>>
>
> The unresolved inner sentence makes the outer sentence resolved.
>

But you only "proved" a Strawman because you are too stupid to
understand the question you were asked about, and claim to be talking
about, Godel's sentence G.