On 1/4/23 10:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/4/2023 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/4/23 8:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2023 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/23 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/2023 7:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> 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:
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just prove you are too stupid to be able to read.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CAN BE USED doesn't mean used in an unmodified form.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hqva explained how it is used, and why the result that is used,
>>>>>> is based on the antinomy but is no longer an antinomy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are too confused to understand that this is impossible, someone
>>>>> with
>>>>> a mere 100 IQ would understand that when a self-contradictory sentence
>>>>> is transformed so that it is no longer self-contradictory then it must
>>>>> not be the same sentence.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I never said it was the same sentence, and neither did Godel.
>>>>
>>>> Your confusion on this shows that you are the Stupdi one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Because you only have a learned-by-rote understanding of these things
>>>>> you cannot not even show what you mean on the basis of a this simple
>>>>> example. Try to show how this sentence is transformed so that it is no
>>>>> longer an epistemological antinomy: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did, but you don't seem to understand the words.
>>>>
>>>> Remember normally transformation change the thing they are
>>>> transforming, that is the meaning of the word.
>>>>
>>>> The transformation is converting the talking of "Truth" to the
>>>> talking about "Provable in <Theory>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G)
>>>
>>> G is not provable in F.
>>> Not provable in F about what?
>>
>> So, you don't understand what that sentence mwns?
>>
>> By your own definitions, the statement "G is not provable in F" means
>> there does not exist a finite set of connections from the set of Truth
>> Makers in F to the statement "G is not provable in F"
>>
>
> It is never from the set of truth makers. It is always a semantic
> connection from the expression of language to its truth maker.

No, proofs go FROM the known truths TO the statement to be proven.

You don't seem to understand how proofs work.

You are just digging the grave of your reputation deeper.

>
> That you don't bother to pay attention to crucial details like this
> seems to mean that you don't give a rat's ass for an honest dialogue.
>

No, YOU are confusing things.

Isn't that standard form of the standard arguement:

given statements A and B, and the relationship that A & B -> C

We can conclude C.

you go FROM the knowns TO the thing to be proven.

Proof by contradiction is a bit of a special case, where you try an
assumption, and if you can prove it leads to a contradiction you know
the assumption was wrong.

Note, if you make the assumption and get to your goal, you haven't
proven anything, you can only DISPROVE a statement by assuming it.

On 1/4/2023 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/4/23 8:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/4/2023 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/4/23 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/2023 7:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> 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:
>>>
>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>
>>>>> Just prove you are too stupid to be able to read.
>>>>>
>>>>> CAN BE USED doesn't mean used in an unmodified form.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hqva explained how it is used, and why the result that is used,
>>>>> is based on the antinomy but is no longer an antinomy.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are too confused to understand that this is impossible, someone
>>>> with
>>>> a mere 100 IQ would understand that when a self-contradictory sentence
>>>> is transformed so that it is no longer self-contradictory then it must
>>>> not be the same sentence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I never said it was the same sentence, and neither did Godel.
>>>
>>> Your confusion on this shows that you are the Stupdi one.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Because you only have a learned-by-rote understanding of these things
>>>> you cannot not even show what you mean on the basis of a this simple
>>>> example. Try to show how this sentence is transformed so that it is no
>>>> longer an epistemological antinomy: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>
>>>
>>> I did, but you don't seem to understand the words.
>>>
>>> Remember normally transformation change the thing they are
>>> transforming, that is the meaning of the word.
>>>
>>> The transformation is converting the talking of "Truth" to the
>>> talking about "Provable in <Theory>
>>>
>>
>>
>> G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G)
>>
>> G is not provable in F.
>> Not provable in F about what?
>
> So, you don't understand what that sentence mwns?
>
> By your own definitions, the statement "G is not provable in F" means
> there does not exist a finite set of connections from the set of Truth
> Makers in F to the statement "G is not provable in F"
>
I proved two different ways that the pathological self reference of G
prevents it from ever being resolved to a truth value in the exact same
way that the Liar Paradox cannot possibly be resolved to a truth value.

If G does not have pathological self-reference that forces it to never
be resolved to a truth value then it fails to meet Gödel's requirement
that it be an epistemological antinomy.

An epistemological antinomy is a self-contradictory expression that
cannot possibly be resolved to 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 1/4/2023 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/4/23 10:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/4/2023 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/4/23 8:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/2023 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/23 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/4/2023 7:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just prove you are too stupid to be able to read.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CAN BE USED doesn't mean used in an unmodified form.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hqva explained how it is used, and why the result that is used,
>>>>>>> is based on the antinomy but is no longer an antinomy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are too confused to understand that this is impossible,
>>>>>> someone with
>>>>>> a mere 100 IQ would understand that when a self-contradictory
>>>>>> sentence
>>>>>> is transformed so that it is no longer self-contradictory then it
>>>>>> must
>>>>>> not be the same sentence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I never said it was the same sentence, and neither did Godel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your confusion on this shows that you are the Stupdi one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you only have a learned-by-rote understanding of these things
>>>>>> you cannot not even show what you mean on the basis of a this simple
>>>>>> example. Try to show how this sentence is transformed so that it
>>>>>> is no
>>>>>> longer an epistemological antinomy: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I did, but you don't seem to understand the words.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember normally transformation change the thing they are
>>>>> transforming, that is the meaning of the word.
>>>>>
>>>>> The transformation is converting the talking of "Truth" to the
>>>>> talking about "Provable in <Theory>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G)
>>>>
>>>> G is not provable in F.
>>>> Not provable in F about what?
>>>
>>> So, you don't understand what that sentence mwns?
>>>
>>> By your own definitions, the statement "G is not provable in F" means
>>> there does not exist a finite set of connections from the set of
>>> Truth Makers in F to the statement "G is not provable in F"
>>>
>>
>> It is never from the set of truth makers. It is always a semantic
>> connection from the expression of language to its truth maker.
>
> No, proofs go FROM the known truths TO the statement to be proven.

OK my mistake. I forgot that I already said that.
(1) Expressions of language that are stipulated to have the semantic
property of Boolean True.

(2) True preserving operations applies to (1) and the output of (2).

>
> You don't seem to understand how proofs work.
>

I merely momentarily forgot.

> You are just digging the grave of your reputation deeper.
>

I don't give a rat's ass about reputation I only care about the
fundamental nature of truth itself.

>>
>> That you don't bother to pay attention to crucial details like this
>> seems to mean that you don't give a rat's ass for an honest dialogue.
>>
>
> No, YOU are confusing things.
>
> Isn't that standard form of the standard arguement:
>

Yes in this case I temporarily conflated truth with provability.

> given statements A and B, and the relationship that A & B -> C
>
> We can conclude C.
>
> you go FROM the knowns TO the thing to be proven.
>

Yes you are correct, yet unlike what modern logic says we are only
allowed to apply truth preserving operations thus the principle of
explosion is rejected as incorrect.

>
> Proof by contradiction is a bit of a special case, where you try an
> assumption, and if you can prove it leads to a contradiction you know
> the assumption was wrong.
>
> Note, if you make the assumption and get to your goal, you haven't
> proven anything, you can only DISPROVE a statement by assuming it.
>

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

On 1/4/23 11:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/4/2023 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/4/23 10:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2023 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/23 8:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/2023 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/4/23 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/4/2023 7:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just prove you are too stupid to be able to read.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CAN BE USED doesn't mean used in an unmodified form.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hqva explained how it is used, and why the result that is
>>>>>>>> used, is based on the antinomy but is no longer an antinomy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are too confused to understand that this is impossible,
>>>>>>> someone with
>>>>>>> a mere 100 IQ would understand that when a self-contradictory
>>>>>>> sentence
>>>>>>> is transformed so that it is no longer self-contradictory then it
>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>> not be the same sentence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I never said it was the same sentence, and neither did Godel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your confusion on this shows that you are the Stupdi one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because you only have a learned-by-rote understanding of these
>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>> you cannot not even show what you mean on the basis of a this simple
>>>>>>> example. Try to show how this sentence is transformed so that it
>>>>>>> is no
>>>>>>> longer an epistemological antinomy: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did, but you don't seem to understand the words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember normally transformation change the thing they are
>>>>>> transforming, that is the meaning of the word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The transformation is converting the talking of "Truth" to the
>>>>>> talking about "Provable in <Theory>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G)
>>>>>
>>>>> G is not provable in F.
>>>>> Not provable in F about what?
>>>>
>>>> So, you don't understand what that sentence mwns?
>>>>
>>>> By your own definitions, the statement "G is not provable in F"
>>>> means there does not exist a finite set of connections from the set
>>>> of Truth Makers in F to the statement "G is not provable in F"
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is never from the set of truth makers. It is always a semantic
>>> connection from the expression of language to its truth maker.
>>
>> No, proofs go FROM the known truths TO the statement to be proven.
>
> OK my mistake. I forgot that I already said that.
> (1) Expressions of language that are stipulated to have the semantic
> property of Boolean True.
>
> (2) True preserving operations applies to (1) and the output of (2).
>
>>
>> You don't seem to understand how proofs work.
>>
>
> I merely momentarily forgot.

Bad thing to forget.

>
>> You are just digging the grave of your reputation deeper.
>>
>
> I don't give a rat's ass about reputation I only care about the
> fundamental nature of truth itself.

THen why do you LIE about it?

>
>>>
>>> That you don't bother to pay attention to crucial details like this
>>> seems to mean that you don't give a rat's ass for an honest dialogue.
>>>
>>
>> No, YOU are confusing things.
>>
>> Isn't that standard form of the standard arguement:
>>
>
> Yes in this case I temporarily conflated truth with provability.

You are ALWAYS confusing the two.

Note, both of the work from the established Truth Makers to the statement.

Truth just allows an infinite connection, so some things are True but
not provalbe.

>
>> given statements A and B, and the relationship that A & B -> C
>>
>> We can conclude C.
>>
>> you go FROM the knowns TO the thing to be proven.
>>
>
> Yes you are correct, yet unlike what modern logic says we are only
> allowed to apply truth preserving operations thus the principle of
> explosion is rejected as incorrect.

Nope, you don't understand how it works.

Because, given a True statement T, we can assert that for ANY statement
that A -> T, and that is a truth perserving operation.

It is a FACT that this is a valid arguement:

Given: A

therefore, by the definition of the Implication operator

B -> A

This follows from the definition of the Implication operator.

If you are getting rid of that, you are going to have trouble making
your logic system work.

We also have that if A -> C then by definitoin A & B -> C, even if B is
always false.

>
>>
>> Proof by contradiction is a bit of a special case, where you try an
>> assumption, and if you can prove it leads to a contradiction you know
>> the assumption was wrong.
>>
>> Note, if you make the assumption and get to your goal, you haven't
>> proven anything, you can only DISPROVE a statement by assuming it.
>>
>

On 1/4/23 11:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/4/2023 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/4/23 8:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2023 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/23 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/2023 7:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> 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:
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just prove you are too stupid to be able to read.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CAN BE USED doesn't mean used in an unmodified form.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hqva explained how it is used, and why the result that is used,
>>>>>> is based on the antinomy but is no longer an antinomy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are too confused to understand that this is impossible, someone
>>>>> with
>>>>> a mere 100 IQ would understand that when a self-contradictory sentence
>>>>> is transformed so that it is no longer self-contradictory then it must
>>>>> not be the same sentence.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I never said it was the same sentence, and neither did Godel.
>>>>
>>>> Your confusion on this shows that you are the Stupdi one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Because you only have a learned-by-rote understanding of these things
>>>>> you cannot not even show what you mean on the basis of a this simple
>>>>> example. Try to show how this sentence is transformed so that it is no
>>>>> longer an epistemological antinomy: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did, but you don't seem to understand the words.
>>>>
>>>> Remember normally transformation change the thing they are
>>>> transforming, that is the meaning of the word.
>>>>
>>>> The transformation is converting the talking of "Truth" to the
>>>> talking about "Provable in <Theory>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G)
>>>
>>> G is not provable in F.
>>> Not provable in F about what?
>>
>> So, you don't understand what that sentence mwns?
>>
>> By your own definitions, the statement "G is not provable in F" means
>> there does not exist a finite set of connections from the set of Truth
>> Makers in F to the statement "G is not provable in F"
>>
> I proved two different ways that the pathological self reference of G
> prevents it from ever being resolved to a truth value in the exact same
> way that the Liar Paradox cannot possibly be resolved to a truth value.

No, your ARGUED. To be a proof you need to start from an ACTUAL Truth
Maker, which means in this case a PROPER definition of the
epistimological antinomy, and then with actual logical steps show that
you get to your conclusion.

Note, Epistimological Antinomy does NOT mean that a statement refers to
itself, even in a negatory way.

You need to actual present an actual proof that the statement that G (in
the meta theory) says that G is not provable in the Theory F can not be
resolved, not just "claim " it.

You just don't understand what a proof is.
>
> If G does not have pathological self-reference that forces it to never
> be resolved to a truth value then it fails to meet Gödel's requirement
> that it be an epistemological antinomy.
>

But saying to doesn't have a proof DOESN'T force it to never be resolved.

> An epistemological antinomy is a self-contradictory expression that
> cannot possibly be resolved to a truth value.
>

Right, and the statement "This statement does not have a proof" does
have a valid truth value, it can be True.

If it is True, it means that it is connected to the Truth Makers by
either a finite or infinite set of connections. If it is True, then it
is unprovable, so it does not have a finte set of connections, but still
can have an infinite set of connections.

What it can not be is false, as if it is false, the that says that it
has NO set of connections, but that also means it is provable, which
means it has a finte set of connections.

A set of connections can not at the same time not exist and exist as a
finite set.

Only if you add the ERRONEOUS assumption that all truth only have a
finite set of connections do you get a contradiction, but that can only
be an actual requirement if you can't ever have a statement that only
has an infinite set of connections, and the only really way to do that
is allow only a finite set of possible connections to exist, which means
your logic system is strictly limited.

On 1/4/2023 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/4/23 11:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/4/2023 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/4/23 10:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/2023 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/23 8:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/4/2023 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/4/23 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/4/2023 7:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just prove you are too stupid to be able to read.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> CAN BE USED doesn't mean used in an unmodified form.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I hqva explained how it is used, and why the result that is
>>>>>>>>> used, is based on the antinomy but is no longer an antinomy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are too confused to understand that this is impossible,
>>>>>>>> someone with
>>>>>>>> a mere 100 IQ would understand that when a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>> sentence
>>>>>>>> is transformed so that it is no longer self-contradictory then
>>>>>>>> it must
>>>>>>>> not be the same sentence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I never said it was the same sentence, and neither did Godel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your confusion on this shows that you are the Stupdi one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because you only have a learned-by-rote understanding of these
>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>> you cannot not even show what you mean on the basis of a this
>>>>>>>> simple
>>>>>>>> example. Try to show how this sentence is transformed so that it
>>>>>>>> is no
>>>>>>>> longer an epistemological antinomy: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did, but you don't seem to understand the words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Remember normally transformation change the thing they are
>>>>>>> transforming, that is the meaning of the word.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The transformation is converting the talking of "Truth" to the
>>>>>>> talking about "Provable in <Theory>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> G is not provable in F.
>>>>>> Not provable in F about what?
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you don't understand what that sentence mwns?
>>>>>
>>>>> By your own definitions, the statement "G is not provable in F"
>>>>> means there does not exist a finite set of connections from the set
>>>>> of Truth Makers in F to the statement "G is not provable in F"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is never from the set of truth makers. It is always a semantic
>>>> connection from the expression of language to its truth maker.
>>>
>>> No, proofs go FROM the known truths TO the statement to be proven.
>>
>> OK my mistake. I forgot that I already said that.
>> (1) Expressions of language that are stipulated to have the semantic
>> property of Boolean True.
>>
>> (2) True preserving operations applies to (1) and the output of (2).
>>
>>>
>>> You don't seem to understand how proofs work.
>>>
>>
>> I merely momentarily forgot.
>
> Bad thing to forget.
>
>>
>>> You are just digging the grave of your reputation deeper.
>>>
>>
>> I don't give a rat's ass about reputation I only care about the
>> fundamental nature of truth itself.
>
> THen why do you LIE about it?
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> That you don't bother to pay attention to crucial details like this
>>>> seems to mean that you don't give a rat's ass for an honest dialogue.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, YOU are confusing things.
>>>
>>> Isn't that standard form of the standard arguement:
>>>
>>
>> Yes in this case I temporarily conflated truth with provability.
>
> You are ALWAYS confusing the two.
>
> Note, both of the work from the established Truth Makers to the statement.
>
> Truth just allows an infinite connection, so some things are True but
> not provalbe.

In rare causes an expression of language is semantically connected to
its truth maker in an an infinite sequence.

Epistemological antinomies never have any finite or infinite semantic
connection to a truth maker.

>>
>>> given statements A and B, and the relationship that A & B -> C
>>>
>>> We can conclude C.
>>>
>>> you go FROM the knowns TO the thing to be proven.
>>>
>>
>> Yes you are correct, yet unlike what modern logic says we are only
>> allowed to apply truth preserving operations thus the principle of
>> explosion is rejected as incorrect.
>
> Nope, you don't understand how it works.

If one starts with a false statement and applies only truth preserving
operations then one only derives expressions of language that are false.

>
> Because, given a True statement T, we can assert that for ANY statement
> that A -> T, and that is a truth perserving operation.
>

If A is stipulated and A -> T is stipulated then T is true.

> It is a FACT that this is a valid arguement:
>
> Given: A
>
> therefore, by the definition of the Implication operator
>
> B -> A
>

That is backwards.

A
A -> B
-------
B

> This follows from the definition of the Implication operator.
>
> If you are getting rid of that, you are going to have trouble making
> your logic system work.
>

(A & ~A) -> empty_string

> We also have that if A -> C then by definitoin A & B -> C, even if B is
> always false.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Proof by contradiction is a bit of a special case, where you try an
>>> assumption, and if you can prove it leads to a contradiction you know
>>> the assumption was wrong.
>>>
>>> Note, if you make the assumption and get to your goal, you haven't
>>> proven anything, you can only DISPROVE a statement by assuming it.
>>>
>>
>

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

On 1/4/2023 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/4/23 11:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/4/2023 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/4/23 8:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/2023 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/23 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/4/2023 7:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just prove you are too stupid to be able to read.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CAN BE USED doesn't mean used in an unmodified form.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hqva explained how it is used, and why the result that is used,
>>>>>>> is based on the antinomy but is no longer an antinomy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are too confused to understand that this is impossible,
>>>>>> someone with
>>>>>> a mere 100 IQ would understand that when a self-contradictory
>>>>>> sentence
>>>>>> is transformed so that it is no longer self-contradictory then it
>>>>>> must
>>>>>> not be the same sentence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I never said it was the same sentence, and neither did Godel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your confusion on this shows that you are the Stupdi one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you only have a learned-by-rote understanding of these things
>>>>>> you cannot not even show what you mean on the basis of a this simple
>>>>>> example. Try to show how this sentence is transformed so that it
>>>>>> is no
>>>>>> longer an epistemological antinomy: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I did, but you don't seem to understand the words.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember normally transformation change the thing they are
>>>>> transforming, that is the meaning of the word.
>>>>>
>>>>> The transformation is converting the talking of "Truth" to the
>>>>> talking about "Provable in <Theory>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G)
>>>>
>>>> G is not provable in F.
>>>> Not provable in F about what?
>>>
>>> So, you don't understand what that sentence mwns?
>>>
>>> By your own definitions, the statement "G is not provable in F" means
>>> there does not exist a finite set of connections from the set of
>>> Truth Makers in F to the statement "G is not provable in F"
>>>
>> I proved two different ways that the pathological self reference of G
>> prevents it from ever being resolved to a truth value in the exact same
>> way that the Liar Paradox cannot possibly be resolved to a truth value.
>
> No, your ARGUED. To be a proof you need to start from an ACTUAL Truth
> Maker, which means in this case a PROPER definition of the
> epistimological antinomy, and then with actual logical steps show that
> you get to your conclusion.
>
> Note, Epistimological Antinomy does NOT mean that a statement refers to
> itself, even in a negatory way.
>

Antinomy (Greek αντι-, against, plus νομος, law) literally means the
mutual incompatibility, real or apparent, of two laws. It is a term
often used in logic and epistemology, when describing a paradox or
unresolvable contradiction.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Antinomy

> You need to actual present an actual proof that the statement that G (in
> the meta theory) says that G is not provable in the Theory F can not be
> resolved, not just "claim " it.
>

You rejected Prolog's correct rejection because you really don't
understand these things at all. For you it is all learned-by-rote.

> You just don't understand what a proof is.
>>
>> If G does not have pathological self-reference that forces it to never
>> be resolved to a truth value then it fails to meet Gödel's requirement
>> that it be an epistemological antinomy.
>>
>
> But saying to doesn't have a proof DOESN'T force it to never be resolved.
>

The meaning of the word Epistimological Antinomy says this.

>
>> An epistemological antinomy is a self-contradictory expression that
>> cannot possibly be resolved to a truth value.
>>
>
> Right, and the statement "This statement does not have a proof" does
> have a valid truth value, it can be True.
>

Not within the same sentence.
If "This sentence cannot be proven" was false then that means it can be
proven, which contradicts its claim that is cannot be proven.

If "This sentence cannot be proven" was true then that means it cannot
be proven, which contradicts its claim that is true.

> If it is True, it means that it is connected to the Truth Makers by
> either a finite or infinite set of connections. If it is True, then it
> is unprovable, so it does not have a finte set of connections, but still
> can have an infinite set of connections.
>
> What it can not be is false, as if it is false, the that says that it
> has NO set of connections, but that also means it is provable, which
> means it has a finte set of connections.
>
> A set of connections can not at the same time not exist and exist as a
> finite set.
>
> Only if you add the ERRONEOUS assumption that all truth only have a
> finite set of connections do you get a contradiction, but that can only
> be an actual requirement if you can't ever have a statement that only
> has an infinite set of connections, and the only really way to do that
> is allow only a finite set of possible connections to exist, which means
> your logic system is strictly limited.

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

On 1/4/2023 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/4/23 10:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/4/2023 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/4/23 8:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/2023 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/23 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/4/2023 7:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just prove you are too stupid to be able to read.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CAN BE USED doesn't mean used in an unmodified form.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hqva explained how it is used, and why the result that is used,
>>>>>>> is based on the antinomy but is no longer an antinomy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are too confused to understand that this is impossible,
>>>>>> someone with
>>>>>> a mere 100 IQ would understand that when a self-contradictory
>>>>>> sentence
>>>>>> is transformed so that it is no longer self-contradictory then it
>>>>>> must
>>>>>> not be the same sentence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I never said it was the same sentence, and neither did Godel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your confusion on this shows that you are the Stupdi one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you only have a learned-by-rote understanding of these things
>>>>>> you cannot not even show what you mean on the basis of a this simple
>>>>>> example. Try to show how this sentence is transformed so that it
>>>>>> is no
>>>>>> longer an epistemological antinomy: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I did, but you don't seem to understand the words.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember normally transformation change the thing they are
>>>>> transforming, that is the meaning of the word.
>>>>>
>>>>> The transformation is converting the talking of "Truth" to the
>>>>> talking about "Provable in <Theory>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G)
>>>>
>>>> G is not provable in F.
>>>> Not provable in F about what?
>>>
>>> So, you don't understand what that sentence mwns?
>>>
>>> By your own definitions, the statement "G is not provable in F" means
>>> there does not exist a finite set of connections from the set of
>>> Truth Makers in F to the statement "G is not provable in F"
>>>
>>
>> It is never from the set of truth makers. It is always a semantic
>> connection from the expression of language to its truth maker.
>
> No, proofs go FROM the known truths TO the statement to be proven.
>

To prove that an expression of language is true one must must establish
a semantic connection to its truth maker.

This can proceed from known truths to conclusions by applying only truth
preserving operations.

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

On 1/5/23 12:17 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/4/2023 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/4/23 11:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2023 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/23 10:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/2023 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/4/23 8:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/4/2023 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/4/23 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/4/2023 7:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just prove you are too stupid to be able to read.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> CAN BE USED doesn't mean used in an unmodified form.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I hqva explained how it is used, and why the result that is
>>>>>>>>>> used, is based on the antinomy but is no longer an antinomy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are too confused to understand that this is impossible,
>>>>>>>>> someone with
>>>>>>>>> a mere 100 IQ would understand that when a self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>> sentence
>>>>>>>>> is transformed so that it is no longer self-contradictory then
>>>>>>>>> it must
>>>>>>>>> not be the same sentence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I never said it was the same sentence, and neither did Godel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your confusion on this shows that you are the Stupdi one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because you only have a learned-by-rote understanding of these
>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>> you cannot not even show what you mean on the basis of a this
>>>>>>>>> simple
>>>>>>>>> example. Try to show how this sentence is transformed so that
>>>>>>>>> it is no
>>>>>>>>> longer an epistemological antinomy: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did, but you don't seem to understand the words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remember normally transformation change the thing they are
>>>>>>>> transforming, that is the meaning of the word.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The transformation is converting the talking of "Truth" to the
>>>>>>>> talking about "Provable in <Theory>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> G is not provable in F.
>>>>>>> Not provable in F about what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you don't understand what that sentence mwns?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By your own definitions, the statement "G is not provable in F"
>>>>>> means there does not exist a finite set of connections from the
>>>>>> set of Truth Makers in F to the statement "G is not provable in F"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is never from the set of truth makers. It is always a semantic
>>>>> connection from the expression of language to its truth maker.
>>>>
>>>> No, proofs go FROM the known truths TO the statement to be proven.
>>>
>>> OK my mistake. I forgot that I already said that.
>>> (1) Expressions of language that are stipulated to have the semantic
>>> property of Boolean True.
>>>
>>> (2) True preserving operations applies to (1) and the output of (2).
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't seem to understand how proofs work.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I merely momentarily forgot.
>>
>> Bad thing to forget.
>>
>>>
>>>> You are just digging the grave of your reputation deeper.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't give a rat's ass about reputation I only care about the
>>> fundamental nature of truth itself.
>>
>> THen why do you LIE about it?
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That you don't bother to pay attention to crucial details like this
>>>>> seems to mean that you don't give a rat's ass for an honest dialogue.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, YOU are confusing things.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that standard form of the standard arguement:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes in this case I temporarily conflated truth with provability.
>>
>> You are ALWAYS confusing the two.
>>
>> Note, both of the work from the established Truth Makers to the
>> statement.
>>
>> Truth just allows an infinite connection, so some things are True but
>> not provalbe.
>
> In rare causes an expression of language is semantically connected to
> its truth maker in an an infinite sequence.
>
> Epistemological antinomies never have any finite or infinite semantic
> connection to a truth maker.
>
>>>
>>>> given statements A and B, and the relationship that A & B -> C
>>>>
>>>> We can conclude C.
>>>>
>>>> you go FROM the knowns TO the thing to be proven.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes you are correct, yet unlike what modern logic says we are only
>>> allowed to apply truth preserving operations thus the principle of
>>> explosion is rejected as incorrect.
>>
>> Nope, you don't understand how it works.
>
> If one starts with a false statement and applies only truth preserving
> operations then one only derives expressions of language that are false.

Nope.

SImplest example.

If we know th statment "Peter is an Adult" is False, then we know from
this, that the statement "Peter is not an Adult" is True.

IF you logic system can't do that, then it is very weak.

>
>>
>> Because, given a True statement T, we can assert that for ANY
>> statement that A -> T, and that is a truth perserving operation.
>>
>
> If A is stipulated and A -> T is stipulated then T is true.
>

No, you don't understand what I was saying,

The given is that T is true.

A provable fact is thus that A -> T, for ANY statement A.

>> It is a FACT that this is a valid arguement:
>>
>> Given: A
>>
>> therefore, by the definition of the Implication operator
>>
>> B -> A
>>
>
> That is backwards.
>
>    A
>    A -> B
>   -------
>      B
>

Nope, you are stuck in YOUR learned a few facts by rote that you are
trying to use to make up something.

I will restate and not reverse the normal letters.

B
______

A -> B

Can you point out a case where this isn't True?

Remember, Implication is NOT "Causation" but just that the truth of the
premises show the truth of the result.

A -> B can also be thought of as a subset operator, it means the set of
models where A is true is a subset (perhaps improper) of the set of
models where B is true.

It means that there is no case where we have A and not B.

IF B is always True, i.e. True in all models, then any combination of
models, even the empty set, is a subset of it.

On 1/5/23 1:19 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/4/2023 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/4/23 10:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2023 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/23 8:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/2023 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/4/23 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/4/2023 7:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just prove you are too stupid to be able to read.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CAN BE USED doesn't mean used in an unmodified form.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hqva explained how it is used, and why the result that is
>>>>>>>> used, is based on the antinomy but is no longer an antinomy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are too confused to understand that this is impossible,
>>>>>>> someone with
>>>>>>> a mere 100 IQ would understand that when a self-contradictory
>>>>>>> sentence
>>>>>>> is transformed so that it is no longer self-contradictory then it
>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>> not be the same sentence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I never said it was the same sentence, and neither did Godel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your confusion on this shows that you are the Stupdi one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because you only have a learned-by-rote understanding of these
>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>> you cannot not even show what you mean on the basis of a this simple
>>>>>>> example. Try to show how this sentence is transformed so that it
>>>>>>> is no
>>>>>>> longer an epistemological antinomy: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did, but you don't seem to understand the words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember normally transformation change the thing they are
>>>>>> transforming, that is the meaning of the word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The transformation is converting the talking of "Truth" to the
>>>>>> talking about "Provable in <Theory>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G)
>>>>>
>>>>> G is not provable in F.
>>>>> Not provable in F about what?
>>>>
>>>> So, you don't understand what that sentence mwns?
>>>>
>>>> By your own definitions, the statement "G is not provable in F"
>>>> means there does not exist a finite set of connections from the set
>>>> of Truth Makers in F to the statement "G is not provable in F"
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is never from the set of truth makers. It is always a semantic
>>> connection from the expression of language to its truth maker.
>>
>> No, proofs go FROM the known truths TO the statement to be proven.
>>
>
> To prove that an expression of language is true one must must establish
> a semantic connection to its truth maker.
>
> This can proceed from known truths to conclusions by applying only truth
> preserving operations.
>

Right, we need a sequence of statements that start for known Truths
(which include statements that a given statement is false).

Note, the Implication is a Truth perserving operator, because given True
inputs, and a True Implication, you get True Results.

Thus

A
A -> B
-------
B

is a valid logic sequence,

and, it is provaable that given:

A -> B
~B
------
~A

And THAT is also a sequence of "Truth Preserving Operations", That is
the Law of Contraposition.

On 1/5/23 12:44 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/4/2023 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/4/23 11:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2023 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/23 8:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/2023 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/4/23 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/4/2023 7:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just prove you are too stupid to be able to read.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CAN BE USED doesn't mean used in an unmodified form.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hqva explained how it is used, and why the result that is
>>>>>>>> used, is based on the antinomy but is no longer an antinomy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are too confused to understand that this is impossible,
>>>>>>> someone with
>>>>>>> a mere 100 IQ would understand that when a self-contradictory
>>>>>>> sentence
>>>>>>> is transformed so that it is no longer self-contradictory then it
>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>> not be the same sentence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I never said it was the same sentence, and neither did Godel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your confusion on this shows that you are the Stupdi one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because you only have a learned-by-rote understanding of these
>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>> you cannot not even show what you mean on the basis of a this simple
>>>>>>> example. Try to show how this sentence is transformed so that it
>>>>>>> is no
>>>>>>> longer an epistemological antinomy: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did, but you don't seem to understand the words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember normally transformation change the thing they are
>>>>>> transforming, that is the meaning of the word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The transformation is converting the talking of "Truth" to the
>>>>>> talking about "Provable in <Theory>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> G ↔ ¬(F ⊢ G)
>>>>>
>>>>> G is not provable in F.
>>>>> Not provable in F about what?
>>>>
>>>> So, you don't understand what that sentence mwns?
>>>>
>>>> By your own definitions, the statement "G is not provable in F"
>>>> means there does not exist a finite set of connections from the set
>>>> of Truth Makers in F to the statement "G is not provable in F"
>>>>
>>> I proved two different ways that the pathological self reference of G
>>> prevents it from ever being resolved to a truth value in the exact same
>>> way that the Liar Paradox cannot possibly be resolved to a truth value.
>>
>> No, your ARGUED. To be a proof you need to start from an ACTUAL Truth
>> Maker, which means in this case a PROPER definition of the
>> epistimological antinomy, and then with actual logical steps show that
>> you get to your conclusion.
>>
>> Note, Epistimological Antinomy does NOT mean that a statement refers
>> to itself, even in a negatory way.
>>
>
> Antinomy (Greek αντι-, against, plus νομος, law) literally means the
> mutual incompatibility, real or apparent, of two laws. It is a term
> often used in logic and epistemology, when describing a paradox or
> unresolvable contradiction.
> https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Antinomy

Right, and since the value is resolvable, it isn't an antinomy.

>
>> You need to actual present an actual proof that the statement that G
>> (in the meta theory) says that G is not provable in the Theory F can
>> not be resolved, not just "claim " it.
>>
>
> You rejected Prolog's correct rejection because you really don't
> understand these things at all. For you it is all learned-by-rote.

The fact that you think that Prolog can answer question out of its
domain shows you are stupid.

>
>> You just don't understand what a proof is.
>>>
>>> If G does not have pathological self-reference that forces it to never
>>> be resolved to a truth value then it fails to meet Gödel's requirement
>>> that it be an epistemological antinomy.
>>>
>>
>> But saying to doesn't have a proof DOESN'T force it to never be resolved.
>>
>
> The meaning of the word Epistimological Antinomy says this.

Nope, you just can't understand the resolution.

>
>>
>>> An epistemological antinomy is a self-contradictory expression that
>>> cannot possibly be resolved to a truth value.
>>>
>>
>> Right, and the statement "This statement does not have a proof" does
>> have a valid truth value, it can be True.
>>
>
> Not within the same sentence.
> If "This sentence cannot be proven" was false then that means it can be
> proven, which contradicts its claim that is cannot be proven.
>
> If "This sentence cannot be proven" was true then that means it cannot
> be proven, which contradicts its claim that is true.

Why? What is wrong about a statement being True and unprovable?

You agreed that Provable was a PROPER subset of Truth, thus there exist
things that are True but not Provable (or are Unprovable)

These are the statements whose only connection to the Truth Makers is an
infinite set.

You are just stuck in a recursive arguement, your only "Proof" that All
truths are probable is the assumption that all truths are provable.

Your loop never gets back to an actual Truth Maker, only the assumption
of itself.

That is just another of your falacy based arguements.

On 1/23/2023 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/23/23 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/29/2022 12:43 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 19:27:44 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>> Since the entire body of analytic truth (defined below) is established
>>>> entirely on the basis of semantic connections between expressions of
>>>> language this is the truth predicate that Tarski “proved” cannot exist:
>>>>
>>>> True(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>> Idiot.
>>>
>>> True(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>> False(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>> Property(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>
>>> Because duuuh! Any semantic property of x entails x!
>>>
>>> Round(circle) entails a circle.
>>> Stupid(Olcott) entails an Olcott!
>>
>> By objective measures I am a genius.
>>
>> Every expression of language of analytical truth necessarily has a
>> semantic connection to its truth maker axioms.
>>
>> False(x) ↔ (⊨~x)
>>
>
> Then why do you say that G in F means
>
> ∃G ∈ F (G ↔ (F ⊬ G))
>
> When that conversion from what G actually says to that isn't based on
> the truth maker axioms in F?

*You don't seem to be able to get this*
Any statement that asserts that its truth value is the same as its own
unprovability is self-contradictory.

If G is unprovable in F is true that makes G true in the above
expression (LHS of ↔ must have same value as RHS of ↔ ) thus proven in
the above expression thus not unprovable.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott

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

On 1/23/23 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/23/2023 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/23/23 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/29/2022 12:43 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 19:27:44 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Since the entire body of analytic truth (defined below) is established
>>>>> entirely on the basis of semantic connections between expressions of
>>>>> language this is the truth predicate that Tarski “proved” cannot
>>>>> exist:
>>>>>
>>>>> True(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>> Idiot.
>>>>
>>>> True(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>> False(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>> Property(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>>
>>>> Because duuuh! Any semantic property of x entails x!
>>>>
>>>> Round(circle) entails a circle.
>>>> Stupid(Olcott) entails an Olcott!
>>>
>>> By objective measures I am a genius.
>>>
>>> Every expression of language of analytical truth necessarily has a
>>> semantic connection to its truth maker axioms.
>>>
>>> False(x) ↔ (⊨~x)
>>>
>>
>> Then why do you say that G in F means
>>
>> ∃G ∈ F (G ↔ (F ⊬ G))
>>
>> When that conversion from what G actually says to that isn't based on
>> the truth maker axioms in F?
>
> *You don't seem to be able to get this*
> Any statement that asserts that its truth value is the same as its own
> unprovability is self-contradictory.

RED HERRING, since that isn't what G if F says.

>
> If G is unprovable in F is true that makes G true in the above
> expression (LHS of ↔ must have same value as RHS of ↔ ) thus proven in
> the above expression thus not unprovable.
>

It isn't G's unprovability in F that makes it true, it is that no number
g exists that satisfies the specified primative recursive relationship.

Since we can show in meta-F that the this is true in the math of F, then
the statement MUST be true, or your F is inconsistent.

PERIOD.

You are claiming a BLANTENT LIE.

That a statement that IS connected to its truth maker axioms (even if
with an infinte chain of them) is not true.

ERGO, you system is broken.

and you are proven to be a stupid liar.

As to your original RED HERRING.

Please provide an actual REFERENCE by an accepted author that says that
a statement that refers to its own unprovabilty is universally
self-contradictory.

That statment violate the MEANING of the words, as the statment is
consistent if the statment is true but unprovable because the truth is
only establishef by an infinite chain of logic to the truth makers in
the system.

You are just proving your mental incapacity.

YOU ARE JUST PROVING YOUR TOTAL IGNORANCE OF THE TOPIC.

On 1/23/2023 5:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/23/23 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/23/2023 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/23/23 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/29/2022 12:43 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 19:27:44 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Since the entire body of analytic truth (defined below) is
>>>>>> established
>>>>>> entirely on the basis of semantic connections between expressions of
>>>>>> language this is the truth predicate that Tarski “proved” cannot
>>>>>> exist:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>>> Idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>> True(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>>> False(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>>> Property(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>>>
>>>>> Because duuuh! Any semantic property of x entails x!
>>>>>
>>>>> Round(circle) entails a circle.
>>>>> Stupid(Olcott) entails an Olcott!
>>>>
>>>> By objective measures I am a genius.
>>>>
>>>> Every expression of language of analytical truth necessarily has a
>>>> semantic connection to its truth maker axioms.
>>>>
>>>> False(x) ↔ (⊨~x)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then why do you say that G in F means
>>>
>>> ∃G ∈ F (G ↔ (F ⊬ G))
>>>
>>> When that conversion from what G actually says to that isn't based on
>>> the truth maker axioms in F?
>>
>> *You don't seem to be able to get this*
>> Any statement that asserts that its truth value is the same as its own
>> unprovability is self-contradictory.
>
> RED HERRING, since that isn't what G if F says.
>
>>
>> If G is unprovable in F is true that makes G true in the above
>> expression (LHS of ↔ must have same value as RHS of ↔ ) thus proven in
>> the above expression thus not unprovable.
>>
>
> It isn't G's unprovability in F that makes it true, it is that no number
> g exists that satisfies the specified primative recursive relationship.
>
> Since we can show in meta-F that the this is true in the math of F, then
> the statement MUST be true, or your F is inconsistent.
>

Gödel said that the Liar Paradox <is> equivalent and we can directly see
that the Liar Paradox is untrue because it is self-contradictory.

When an equivalent proof is refuted, this does refute the original proof.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott

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

On 1/23/23 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/23/2023 5:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/23/23 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/23/2023 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/23/23 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/29/2022 12:43 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 19:27:44 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Since the entire body of analytic truth (defined below) is
>>>>>>> established
>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of semantic connections between expressions of
>>>>>>> language this is the truth predicate that Tarski “proved” cannot
>>>>>>> exist:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>>>> Idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>>>> False(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>>>> Property(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because duuuh! Any semantic property of x entails x!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Round(circle) entails a circle.
>>>>>> Stupid(Olcott) entails an Olcott!
>>>>>
>>>>> By objective measures I am a genius.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every expression of language of analytical truth necessarily has a
>>>>> semantic connection to its truth maker axioms.
>>>>>
>>>>> False(x) ↔ (⊨~x)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then why do you say that G in F means
>>>>
>>>> ∃G ∈ F (G ↔ (F ⊬ G))
>>>>
>>>> When that conversion from what G actually says to that isn't based
>>>> on the truth maker axioms in F?
>>>
>>> *You don't seem to be able to get this*
>>> Any statement that asserts that its truth value is the same as its own
>>> unprovability is self-contradictory.
>>
>> RED HERRING, since that isn't what G if F says.
>>
>>>
>>> If G is unprovable in F is true that makes G true in the above
>>> expression (LHS of ↔ must have same value as RHS of ↔ ) thus proven in
>>> the above expression thus not unprovable.
>>>
>>
>> It isn't G's unprovability in F that makes it true, it is that no
>> number g exists that satisfies the specified primative recursive
>> relationship.
>>
>> Since we can show in meta-F that the this is true in the math of F,
>> then the statement MUST be true, or your F is inconsistent.
>>
>
> Gödel said that the Liar Paradox <is> equivalent and we can directly see
> that the Liar Paradox is untrue because it is self-contradictory.
>
> When an equivalent proof is refuted, this does refute the original proof.
>

Nope, you just don't understand what he is saying, and the comment you
are misunderstanding is about in the META-THEORY, not the theory.

Look at is exact words, he never says it is "equvalent", he says he used.

All you are provi9ng is that you don't understand even the basics of his
proof, and are too stupid to realize what you don't understand.

On 1/23/2023 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/23/23 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/23/2023 5:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/23/23 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/23/2023 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/23/23 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/29/2022 12:43 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 19:27:44 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> Since the entire body of analytic truth (defined below) is
>>>>>>>> established
>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of semantic connections between
>>>>>>>> expressions of
>>>>>>>> language this is the truth predicate that Tarski “proved” cannot
>>>>>>>> exist:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>>>>> Idiot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>>>>> False(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>>>>> Property(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because duuuh! Any semantic property of x entails x!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Round(circle) entails a circle.
>>>>>>> Stupid(Olcott) entails an Olcott!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By objective measures I am a genius.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every expression of language of analytical truth necessarily has a
>>>>>> semantic connection to its truth maker axioms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> False(x) ↔ (⊨~x)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why do you say that G in F means
>>>>>
>>>>> ∃G ∈ F (G ↔ (F ⊬ G))
>>>>>
>>>>> When that conversion from what G actually says to that isn't based
>>>>> on the truth maker axioms in F?
>>>>
>>>> *You don't seem to be able to get this*
>>>> Any statement that asserts that its truth value is the same as its own
>>>> unprovability is self-contradictory.
>>>
>>> RED HERRING, since that isn't what G if F says.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If G is unprovable in F is true that makes G true in the above
>>>> expression (LHS of ↔ must have same value as RHS of ↔ ) thus proven in
>>>> the above expression thus not unprovable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It isn't G's unprovability in F that makes it true, it is that no
>>> number g exists that satisfies the specified primative recursive
>>> relationship.
>>>
>>> Since we can show in meta-F that the this is true in the math of F,
>>> then the statement MUST be true, or your F is inconsistent.
>>>
>>
>> Gödel said that the Liar Paradox <is> equivalent and we can directly see
>> that the Liar Paradox is untrue because it is self-contradictory.
>>
>> When an equivalent proof is refuted, this does refute the original proof.
>>
>
> Nope, you just don't understand what he is saying, and the comment you
> are misunderstanding is about in the META-THEORY, not the theory.
>

Tarski defines the actual Liar Paradox as his basis
https://www.liarparadox.org/247_248.pdf

The Tarski determines that the Liar Paradox is true is his metatheory
https://www.liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

Tarski never understands that the Liar Paradox is simply not a truth
bearer in his theory because it is self-contradictory in his theory and
not self-contradictory in his metatheory.

People writing papers today are still trying to "resolve" the Liar
Paradox never realizing that this is like trying to bake an angel food
cake using house bricks as the only ingredient.

> Look at is exact words, he never says it is "equvalent", he says he used.
>
> All you are provi9ng is that you don't understand even the basics of his
> proof, and are too stupid to realize what you don't understand.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/23/23 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/23/2023 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/23/23 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/23/2023 5:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/23/23 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/23/2023 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/23/23 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/29/2022 12:43 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 19:27:44 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Since the entire body of analytic truth (defined below) is
>>>>>>>>> established
>>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of semantic connections between
>>>>>>>>> expressions of
>>>>>>>>> language this is the truth predicate that Tarski “proved”
>>>>>>>>> cannot exist:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>>>>>> Idiot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>>>>>> False(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>>>>>> Property(x) ↔ (⊨x)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because duuuh! Any semantic property of x entails x!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Round(circle) entails a circle.
>>>>>>>> Stupid(Olcott) entails an Olcott!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By objective measures I am a genius.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every expression of language of analytical truth necessarily has
>>>>>>> a semantic connection to its truth maker axioms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> False(x) ↔ (⊨~x)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why do you say that G in F means
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ∃G ∈ F (G ↔ (F ⊬ G))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When that conversion from what G actually says to that isn't based
>>>>>> on the truth maker axioms in F?
>>>>>
>>>>> *You don't seem to be able to get this*
>>>>> Any statement that asserts that its truth value is the same as its own
>>>>> unprovability is self-contradictory.
>>>>
>>>> RED HERRING, since that isn't what G if F says.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If G is unprovable in F is true that makes G true in the above
>>>>> expression (LHS of ↔ must have same value as RHS of ↔ ) thus proven in
>>>>> the above expression thus not unprovable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It isn't G's unprovability in F that makes it true, it is that no
>>>> number g exists that satisfies the specified primative recursive
>>>> relationship.
>>>>
>>>> Since we can show in meta-F that the this is true in the math of F,
>>>> then the statement MUST be true, or your F is inconsistent.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gödel said that the Liar Paradox <is> equivalent and we can directly see
>>> that the Liar Paradox is untrue because it is self-contradictory.
>>>
>>> When an equivalent proof is refuted, this does refute the original
>>> proof.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, you just don't understand what he is saying, and the comment you
>> are misunderstanding is about in the META-THEORY, not the theory.
>>
>
> Tarski defines the actual Liar Paradox as his basis
> https://www.liarparadox.org/247_248.pdf

Where? and I mean in the way YOU claim where the liar is directly used
as an assumed Truth Bearing statement.

>
> The Tarski determines that the Liar Paradox is true is his metatheory
> https://www.liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

Right, given the assumption of the existance of a "Definition of Truth",
he proves that the Liar's Paradox is True, which is can't be, and thus
te existance of such a definition can not exist.
>
> Tarski never understands that the Liar Paradox is simply not a truth
> bearer in his theory because it is self-contradictory in his theory and
> not self-contradictory in his metatheory.

No, he did, becuase he used the fact that the assumption proved it
indicates that the assumption must be wrong.

You apparently can't understand the concept of Proof by Contradiction.

>
> People writing papers today are still trying to "resolve" the Liar
> Paradox never realizing that this is like trying to bake an angel food
> cake using house bricks as the only ingredient.

Maybe there are STUPID people trying to resolve it, or some smart people
trying to work on alternate logic systems (knowing they are alternate)
that can handle it.

>
>> Look at is exact words, he never says it is "equvalent", he says he used.
>>
>> All you are provi9ng is that you don't understand even the basics of
>> his proof, and are too stupid to realize what you don't understand.
>

You didn' do this, don't mention it, so obviously you have no idea how
to show your idea except by resorting to smoke and mirrors and changing
to a new direction.

On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 10:45:36 PM UTC-6, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/23/23 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > On 1/23/2023 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >> On 1/23/23 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>> On 1/23/2023 5:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>> On 1/23/23 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>> On 1/23/2023 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/23/23 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 12/29/2022 12:43 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 19:27:44 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Since the entire body of analytic truth (defined below) is
> >>>>>>>>> established
> >>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of semantic connections between
> >>>>>>>>> expressions of
> >>>>>>>>> language this is the truth predicate that Tarski “proved”
> >>>>>>>>> cannot exist:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> True(x) ↔ (⊨x)
> >>>>>>>> Idiot.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> True(x) ↔ (⊨x)
> >>>>>>>> False(x) ↔ (⊨x)
> >>>>>>>> Property(x) ↔ (⊨x)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Because duuuh! Any semantic property of x entails x!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Round(circle) entails a circle.
> >>>>>>>> Stupid(Olcott) entails an Olcott!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> By objective measures I am a genius.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Every expression of language of analytical truth necessarily has
> >>>>>>> a semantic connection to its truth maker axioms.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> False(x) ↔ (⊨~x)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then why do you say that G in F means
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ∃G ∈ F (G ↔ (F ⊬ G))
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When that conversion from what G actually says to that isn't based
> >>>>>> on the truth maker axioms in F?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *You don't seem to be able to get this*
> >>>>> Any statement that asserts that its truth value is the same as its own
> >>>>> unprovability is self-contradictory.
> >>>>
> >>>> RED HERRING, since that isn't what G if F says.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If G is unprovable in F is true that makes G true in the above
> >>>>> expression (LHS of ↔ must have same value as RHS of ↔ ) thus proven in
> >>>>> the above expression thus not unprovable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It isn't G's unprovability in F that makes it true, it is that no
> >>>> number g exists that satisfies the specified primative recursive
> >>>> relationship.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since we can show in meta-F that the this is true in the math of F,
> >>>> then the statement MUST be true, or your F is inconsistent.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Gödel said that the Liar Paradox <is> equivalent and we can directly see
> >>> that the Liar Paradox is untrue because it is self-contradictory.
> >>>
> >>> When an equivalent proof is refuted, this does refute the original
> >>> proof.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Nope, you just don't understand what he is saying, and the comment you
> >> are misunderstanding is about in the META-THEORY, not the theory.
> >>
> >
> > Tarski defines the actual Liar Paradox as his basis
> > https://www.liarparadox.org/247_248.pdf
> Where? and I mean in the way YOU claim where the liar is directly used
> as an assumed Truth Bearing statement.
> >
> > The Tarski determines that the Liar Paradox is true is his metatheory
> > https://www.liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
> Right, given the assumption of the existance of a "Definition of Truth",
> he proves that the Liar's Paradox is True, which is can't be, and thus
> te existance of such a definition can not exist.
> >
> > Tarski never understands that the Liar Paradox is simply not a truth
> > bearer in his theory because it is self-contradictory in his theory and
> > not self-contradictory in his metatheory.
> No, he did, becuase he used the fact that the assumption proved it
> indicates that the assumption must be wrong.
>
> You apparently can't understand the concept of Proof by Contradiction.
> >
> > People writing papers today are still trying to "resolve" the Liar
> > Paradox never realizing that this is like trying to bake an angel food
> > cake using house bricks as the only ingredient.
> Maybe there are STUPID people trying to resolve it, or some smart people
> trying to work on alternate logic systems (knowing they are alternate)
> that can handle it.
> >
> >> Look at is exact words, he never says it is "equvalent", he says he used.
> >>
> >> All you are provi9ng is that you don't understand even the basics of
> >> his proof, and are too stupid to realize what you don't understand.
> >
> You didn' do this, don't mention it, so obviously you have no idea how
> to show your idea except by resorting to smoke and mirrors and changing
> to a new direction.

not quite full; still have 10% to go.