On 1/7/2023 10:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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?
>

I have insisted all along that I have only been referring to the

14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof.

of Gödel's proof. Perhaps because you have a neurological disorder this
is too difficult for you to keep track of.

>>
>> ?- G = not(provable(F, G)). % G = ¬(F ⊢ G)
>
> Which is NOT G in F, G in F is what I quoted above.
>

No formal system what-so-ever can correctly resolve any epistemological
antinomy that because of pathological self-reference is not a truth
bearer. G = ¬(F ⊢ G) is one of those.

>>
>> 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.
>

It proves that there cannot possibly be any semantic connection from G
to its truth maker axioms.

>>>
>>> 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
>

Prolog and I both understand
No formal system what-so-ever can correctly resolve any epistemological
antinomy that because of pathological self-reference is not a truth
bearer. G = ¬(F ⊢ G) is one of those.

>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.

That you fail to understand how I and Prolog are both correct is no
failure on my part.

--
Copyright 2023 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 4:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/7/2023 10:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>
> I have insisted all along that I have only been referring to the
>
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof.

Which isn't DIRECTLY used, so there is not epistemological antinomy in
the proof to reject.

Thus, STRAWMAN.

>
> of Gödel's proof. Perhaps because you have a neurological disorder this
> is too difficult for you to keep track of.

His proof doesn't use a epistemological antinomy in the proof itself,

He used an epistemological antinomy to help prepare the non-antinomy
that is used as the statement.

FIND and actual epistemological antinomy actually used as a truth bearer
in the proof,

You won't find it, becuae it isn't there.

>
>>>
>>> ?- G = not(provable(F, G)). % G = ¬(F ⊢ G)
>>
>> Which is NOT G in F, G in F is what I quoted above.
>>
>
> No formal system what-so-ever can correctly resolve any epistemological
> antinomy that because of pathological self-reference is not a truth
> bearer. G = ¬(F ⊢ G) is one of those.

Right, but it the claimed epistemoligical antinpomy isn't actually
there, it can't cause a problem.

WHERE IS THE STATEMENT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IN THE PROOF ITSELF used as
a Truth Bearer.

Give me the equation number, or at least the page in the proof itself
where he actually uses it.

You are seeing things, because your eyes don't see trutn.

>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> It proves that there cannot possibly be any semantic connection from G
> to its truth maker axioms.

Nope. PROLOG can't prove everything.

Where is the prolog proof of the Pythgorean Formula I ask for?

>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>
> Prolog and I both understand
> No formal system what-so-ever can correctly resolve any epistemological
> antinomy that because of pathological self-reference is not a truth
> bearer. G = ¬(F ⊢ G) is one of those.

Please show your PROOF that this sentence is an epistemolgical antinomy.

QUOTE ACTUAL DEFINTIONS and AXIOMS, and show the steps.

Remember, the statement IS resolvable as G is True and thus Unprovable.

That is a VALID Truth Bearing State in this field.

YOU HAVE FAILED to show this and just proved your stupidity,

>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> That you fail to understand how I and Prolog are both correct is no
> failure on my part.
>

Nope, you don't understand the tools you are trying to use and their
capabilities.

You are just PROVING your stupidity.

Prolog reject the statement because it is BEYOND what Prolog can handle,
because it isn't a statement of first oreder logic.

On 1/7/2023 10:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.

None-the-less

14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:43)

shows the when it is used and correctly refuted that this refutation
applies to the original proof because Gödel said they are equivalent.

--
Copyright 2023 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 5:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/7/2023 10:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/7/23 11:10 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2023 10:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>>>> 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.
>
> None-the-less
>
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:43)
>
> shows the when it is used and correctly refuted that this refutation
> applies to the original proof because Gödel said they are equivalent.
>

Which, since the sentence isn't actually USED (in that form) in the
proof, says your statement isn't actually semantically connected, so
isn't true.

Please show where in the PROOF (and not just his comments about it) that
the sentence is used.

You posted the paper, so you have it, read it and point where it is
actually used in a way that your claim is correct.

You are just falling for your own Strawman because you are to ignorant
to understand what you are talking about.

The coment is about some Meta-Meta-Theory used to come up with the
Meta-Theory that the proof uses.

Not as a statement of Truth Bearing, but as a general form of arguement
that can be transformed via the logic into an actual Truth Bearing
Statement that shows that there exists a statment that is True but
Unprovable (because it if was False, it would be proven True, and thus
creates a contradiction).

It seems you don't understand the working of Proof by Contradiction,
which is a fatal flaw to your logic.

The Epistemlogical Antinomy that started as a base to work from gets
transformed into a different form of contradictions, but inside the
Proof by Contradiction, so its existance is what actually provides the
PROOF of the statement.

Your own ignorance is what is blinding you to what is actually the Truth
of the statements.