On 2022-02-23 08:13, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 11:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-02-22 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from Germany.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like assuming that someone must be from Mountain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated problems
>>>>>>>>>>>>> into basic elements and then reassemble them from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>>>>>>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have
>>>>>>>>> perfectly summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the
>>>>>>>>> philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the
>>>>>>>>> philosophy of language.
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of
>>>>>>>>> logicians and mathematicians. He understood these things at the
>>>>>>>>> deepest philosophical level. He was very famous in his day for
>>>>>>>>> his knowledge of the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to
>>>>>>>>> explain the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and
>>>>>>>>> asserts that Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof." In other words his proof has the
>>>>>>>>> exact same basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as the
>>>>>>>>> "liar antinomy".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer"
>>>>>>>>> because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar
>>>>>>>>> paradox Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>>>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the
>>>>>>>> complexities of the problem. B
>>>>>>> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made
>>>>>>> (his view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply
>>>>>>> utterly clueless about the deep analysis of these things, you
>>>>>>> only know them by rote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wittgenstein  is quoted on page 6
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His Quote that you highlight:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved in Russell's
>>>>>> system; and 'false in Russell's system' means:the opposite has
>>>>>> been proved in Russell's system
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is not a correct statement.
>>>>> So then what could 'True in Russell's system' mean ???
>>>>
>>>> You'd have to ask Wittgenstein that.
>>>>
>>>> You'd also have to ask him why he felt this had any relevance to
>>>> Gödel's Theorem since Gödel's paper doesn't use the expression 'True
>>>> in Russell's System'. In fact, it does not mention or discuss truth
>>>> at all.
>>>>
>>>> As has been pointed out to you, the Wittgenstein quote you are so
>>>> enamoured with was taken from a set of notebooks which were never
>>>> intended for publication. They were essentially Wittgenstein
>>>> 'thinking out loud', and contain both worthwhile ideas which he
>>>> later expanded upon and published as well as half-baked ideas which
>>>> he clearly came up with before his morning coffee.
>>>>
>>>> We'll never know how Wittgenstein came to view this particular
>>>> paragraph if he later revisited it, but there are two things of
>>>> which we are absolutely certain.
>>>>
>>>> (1) We know the comment was written *BEFORE* Wittgenstein had
>>>> actually read Gödel's paper, so it was based on some second-hand
>>>> summary of the paper which he had encountered.
>>>>
>>>> (2) We know that Wittgenstein *DID* eventually read Gödel's paper,
>>>> and that after reading it he did not make any attempt to publish
>>>> this 'criticism' of Gödel, nor did he mention it again in any of his
>>>> known notebooks.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> My view on Gödel is totally summed up by Wittgenstein.
>>> I formed Wittgenstein's complete view long before I ever heard of him.
>>
>> You don't know what Wittgenstein 'complete view' actually was. No one
>> other than Wittgenstein knows this.
>>
>
> Because I formed this same view myself independently of Wittgenstein I
> can say that his quoted words in my paper form a 100% complete rebuttal
> that Gödel found a sentence that is both true and unprovable. It is
> simply unprovable because it is untrue.

On 2022-02-23 12:08, André G. Isaak wrote:

> Soundness is not a property of arguments, not propositions

Delete first occurrence of word 'not' above.

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On 2/23/2022 1:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-23 08:13, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 11:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-22 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Germany. That's like assuming that someone must be from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ground up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>>>>>>>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have
>>>>>>>>>> perfectly summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic,
>>>>>>>>>> the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the
>>>>>>>>>> philosophy of language.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of
>>>>>>>>>> logicians and mathematicians. He understood these things at
>>>>>>>>>> the deepest philosophical level. He was very famous in his day
>>>>>>>>>> for his knowledge of the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to
>>>>>>>>>> explain the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and
>>>>>>>>>> asserts that Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof." In other words his proof has
>>>>>>>>>> the exact same basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as
>>>>>>>>>> the "liar antinomy".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer"
>>>>>>>>>> because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar
>>>>>>>>>> paradox Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the
>>>>>>>>> complexities of the problem. B
>>>>>>>> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made
>>>>>>>> (his view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply
>>>>>>>> utterly clueless about the deep analysis of these things, you
>>>>>>>> only know them by rote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein  is quoted on page 6
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His Quote that you highlight:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved in
>>>>>>> Russell's system; and 'false in Russell's system' means:the
>>>>>>> opposite has been proved in Russell's system
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is not a correct statement.
>>>>>> So then what could 'True in Russell's system' mean ???
>>>>>
>>>>> You'd have to ask Wittgenstein that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You'd also have to ask him why he felt this had any relevance to
>>>>> Gödel's Theorem since Gödel's paper doesn't use the expression
>>>>> 'True in Russell's System'. In fact, it does not mention or discuss
>>>>> truth at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> As has been pointed out to you, the Wittgenstein quote you are so
>>>>> enamoured with was taken from a set of notebooks which were never
>>>>> intended for publication. They were essentially Wittgenstein
>>>>> 'thinking out loud', and contain both worthwhile ideas which he
>>>>> later expanded upon and published as well as half-baked ideas which
>>>>> he clearly came up with before his morning coffee.
>>>>>
>>>>> We'll never know how Wittgenstein came to view this particular
>>>>> paragraph if he later revisited it, but there are two things of
>>>>> which we are absolutely certain.
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) We know the comment was written *BEFORE* Wittgenstein had
>>>>> actually read Gödel's paper, so it was based on some second-hand
>>>>> summary of the paper which he had encountered.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) We know that Wittgenstein *DID* eventually read Gödel's paper,
>>>>> and that after reading it he did not make any attempt to publish
>>>>> this 'criticism' of Gödel, nor did he mention it again in any of
>>>>> his known notebooks.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My view on Gödel is totally summed up by Wittgenstein.
>>>> I formed Wittgenstein's complete view long before I ever heard of him.
>>>
>>> You don't know what Wittgenstein 'complete view' actually was. No one
>>> other than Wittgenstein knows this.
>>>
>>
>> Because I formed this same view myself independently of Wittgenstein I
>> can say that his quoted words in my paper form a 100% complete
>> rebuttal that Gödel found a sentence that is both true and unprovable.
>> It is simply unprovable because it is untrue.
>
> It is quite possible for two people to independently reach the same
> wrong conclusion. So the above hardly constitutes an argument.
>

On 2/22/2022 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/22/22 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/22/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this in the header that will get rid of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you were claiming the poster in question was from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Germany. That's like assuming that someone must be from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creative possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first principles,” the idea is to break down complicated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the ground up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not correspond to conventional wisdom because I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected the errors in the philosophical underpinnings of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this conventional wisdom. People acting like sheep say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am wrong because they are attached to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have is gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they simply do not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conform to the RULES of the field. They just are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> truths, as truths by definition, conform to reality, and in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a logical field, that includes its rules and definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with
>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and
>>>>>>>>>>>> must be resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Gibberish', they are pointing out that you are BREAKING
>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE RULES of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this
>>>>>>>>>>>> repeating pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even
>>>>>>>>>>>> though you yourself already acknowledged that it is an
>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>>>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or not it
>>>>>>>>>> is aborted because halting is required to reach a final state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated countless
>>>>>>>>>> times you must either be a liar or have actual brain damage.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach the
>>>>>>>>> final state because you give up when your machine aborts it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>>>>>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which means that
>>>>
>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can't possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn because it is
>>>> infinitely recursive.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then H can't have aborted its simulation, so it didn't answer, and it
>>> FAILED.
>> _Infinite_Loop()
>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>
> This doesn't present the pattern you just claim, so you just committed
> that fallacy of the Red Herring.
>

On 2/23/22 6:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 2/22/22 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2022 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/22/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this in the header that will get rid of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you were claiming the poster in question was from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Germany. That's like assuming that someone must be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creative possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first principles,” the idea is to break down
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated problems into basic elements and then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not correspond to conventional wisdom because I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected the errors in the philosophical underpinnings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this conventional wisdom. People acting like sheep say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am wrong because they are attached to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have is gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they simply do not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conform to the RULES of the field. They just are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truths, as truths by definition, conform to reality, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a logical field, that includes its rules and definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Gibberish', they are pointing out that you are BREAKING
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE RULES of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeating pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> though you yourself already acknowledged that it is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>>>>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or not
>>>>>>>>>>> it is aborted because halting is required to reach a final
>>>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated countless
>>>>>>>>>>> times you must either be a liar or have actual brain damage.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach the
>>>>>>>>>> final state because you give up when your machine aborts it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>>>>>>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which means that
>>>>>
>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can't possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn because it is
>>>>> infinitely recursive.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then H can't have aborted its simulation, so it didn't answer, and
>>>> it FAILED.
>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>
>> This doesn't present the pattern you just claim, so you just committed
>> that fallacy of the Red Herring.
>>
>
> If you can't tell that the above is very obviously an infinite loop you
> are far too ignorant to have any chance of providing anything close to
> an accurate review of my work.
>

On 2/23/22 10:13 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 11:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-02-22 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from Germany.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like assuming that someone must be from Mountain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated problems
>>>>>>>>>>>>> into basic elements and then reassemble them from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>>>>>>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have
>>>>>>>>> perfectly summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the
>>>>>>>>> philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the
>>>>>>>>> philosophy of language.
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of
>>>>>>>>> logicians and mathematicians. He understood these things at the
>>>>>>>>> deepest philosophical level. He was very famous in his day for
>>>>>>>>> his knowledge of the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to
>>>>>>>>> explain the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and
>>>>>>>>> asserts that Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof." In other words his proof has the
>>>>>>>>> exact same basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as the
>>>>>>>>> "liar antinomy".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer"
>>>>>>>>> because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar
>>>>>>>>> paradox Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>>>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the
>>>>>>>> complexities of the problem. B
>>>>>>> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made
>>>>>>> (his view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply
>>>>>>> utterly clueless about the deep analysis of these things, you
>>>>>>> only know them by rote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wittgenstein  is quoted on page 6
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His Quote that you highlight:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved in Russell's
>>>>>> system; and 'false in Russell's system' means:the opposite has
>>>>>> been proved in Russell's system
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is not a correct statement.
>>>>> So then what could 'True in Russell's system' mean ???
>>>>
>>>> You'd have to ask Wittgenstein that.
>>>>
>>>> You'd also have to ask him why he felt this had any relevance to
>>>> Gödel's Theorem since Gödel's paper doesn't use the expression 'True
>>>> in Russell's System'. In fact, it does not mention or discuss truth
>>>> at all.
>>>>
>>>> As has been pointed out to you, the Wittgenstein quote you are so
>>>> enamoured with was taken from a set of notebooks which were never
>>>> intended for publication. They were essentially Wittgenstein
>>>> 'thinking out loud', and contain both worthwhile ideas which he
>>>> later expanded upon and published as well as half-baked ideas which
>>>> he clearly came up with before his morning coffee.
>>>>
>>>> We'll never know how Wittgenstein came to view this particular
>>>> paragraph if he later revisited it, but there are two things of
>>>> which we are absolutely certain.
>>>>
>>>> (1) We know the comment was written *BEFORE* Wittgenstein had
>>>> actually read Gödel's paper, so it was based on some second-hand
>>>> summary of the paper which he had encountered.
>>>>
>>>> (2) We know that Wittgenstein *DID* eventually read Gödel's paper,
>>>> and that after reading it he did not make any attempt to publish
>>>> this 'criticism' of Gödel, nor did he mention it again in any of his
>>>> known notebooks.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> My view on Gödel is totally summed up by Wittgenstein.
>>> I formed Wittgenstein's complete view long before I ever heard of him.
>>
>> You don't know what Wittgenstein 'complete view' actually was. No one
>> other than Wittgenstein knows this.
>>
>
> Because I formed this same view myself independently of Wittgenstein I
> can say that his quoted words in my paper form a 100% complete rebuttal
> that Gödel found a sentence that is both true and unprovable. It is
> simply unprovable because it is untrue.
>
>> What you are really saying is that you formed some view and then
>> interpreted one of Wittgenstein's remarks in terms of that view.
>>
>>> Note that Haskell Curry is quoted before Wittgenstein has a
>>> comparable notion of what "true in a formal system" means.
>>>
>>> Let 𝓣 be such a theory. Then the elementary statements which belong
>>> to 𝓣 we shall call the elementary theorems of 𝓣; we also say that
>>> these elementary statements are true for 𝓣. Thus, given 𝓣, an
>>> elementary theorem is an elementary statement which is true...
>>>
>>> Olcott's true in a formal system 𝓣 is exactly Curry's elementary
>>> theorems of 𝓣 and statements of 𝓣 derived by applying truth
>>> preserving operations beginning with Curry's elementary theorems of
>>> 𝓣 as premises.
>>>
>>> When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations
>>> you always necessarily end up with truth.
>>
>>
>> Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Gödel, since his theorem was
>> not concerned with truth and made no mention of truth at all.
>>
>> André
>
> It has everything to do with all undecidable propositions.
>
> Undecidable propositions are simply not truth bearers in the same way
> that the following sentence is neither true nor false: "What time is it?"

On 2/23/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/23/22 6:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/22/22 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/22/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this in the header that will get rid of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you were claiming the poster in question was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Germany. That's like assuming that someone must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creative possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first principles,” the idea is to break down
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated problems into basic elements and then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not correspond to conventional wisdom because I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected the errors in the philosophical underpinnings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this conventional wisdom. People acting like sheep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that I am wrong because they are attached to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have is gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they simply do not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conform to the RULES of the field. They just are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truths, as truths by definition, conform to reality, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a logical field, that includes its rules and definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Gibberish', they are pointing out that you are BREAKING
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE RULES of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeating pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though you yourself already acknowledged that it is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or not
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is aborted because halting is required to reach a final
>>>>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated
>>>>>>>>>>>> countless times you must either be a liar or have actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> brain damage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach the
>>>>>>>>>>> final state because you give up when your machine aborts it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which means that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can't possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn because it
>>>>>> is infinitely recursive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then H can't have aborted its simulation, so it didn't answer, and
>>>>> it FAILED.
>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>
>>> This doesn't present the pattern you just claim, so you just
>>> committed that fallacy of the Red Herring.
>>>
>>
>> If you can't tell that the above is very obviously an infinite loop
>> you are far too ignorant to have any chance of providing anything
>> close to an accurate review of my work.
>>
>
> You keep up that Fallacious And Invalid Logic and some day someone might
> beleive you.
>
> I NEVER said that it is impossible to detect SOME infinite loops.
>
> I said that H can't correctly detect an infinite loop in H^ and abort
> its simulation to report it, because in doing so H breaks the loop so it
> doesn't exist.

On 2/23/22 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2022 1:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-02-23 08:13, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2022 11:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-22 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this in the header that will get rid of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Germany. That's like assuming that someone must be from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creative possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first principles,” the idea is to break down complicated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the ground up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>>>>>>>>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have
>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic,
>>>>>>>>>>> the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and
>>>>>>>>>>> the philosophy of language.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of
>>>>>>>>>>> logicians and mathematicians. He understood these things at
>>>>>>>>>>> the deepest philosophical level. He was very famous in his
>>>>>>>>>>> day for his knowledge of the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to
>>>>>>>>>>> explain the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and
>>>>>>>>>>> asserts that Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof." In other words his proof has
>>>>>>>>>>> the exact same basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to
>>>>>>>>>>> as the "liar antinomy".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth
>>>>>>>>>>> bearer" because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar
>>>>>>>>>>> paradox Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the
>>>>>>>>>> complexities of the problem. B
>>>>>>>>> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made
>>>>>>>>> (his view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply
>>>>>>>>> utterly clueless about the deep analysis of these things, you
>>>>>>>>> only know them by rote.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein  is quoted on page 6
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His Quote that you highlight:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved in
>>>>>>>> Russell's system; and 'false in Russell's system' means:the
>>>>>>>> opposite has been proved in Russell's system
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is not a correct statement.
>>>>>>> So then what could 'True in Russell's system' mean ???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'd have to ask Wittgenstein that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'd also have to ask him why he felt this had any relevance to
>>>>>> Gödel's Theorem since Gödel's paper doesn't use the expression
>>>>>> 'True in Russell's System'. In fact, it does not mention or
>>>>>> discuss truth at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As has been pointed out to you, the Wittgenstein quote you are so
>>>>>> enamoured with was taken from a set of notebooks which were never
>>>>>> intended for publication. They were essentially Wittgenstein
>>>>>> 'thinking out loud', and contain both worthwhile ideas which he
>>>>>> later expanded upon and published as well as half-baked ideas
>>>>>> which he clearly came up with before his morning coffee.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We'll never know how Wittgenstein came to view this particular
>>>>>> paragraph if he later revisited it, but there are two things of
>>>>>> which we are absolutely certain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) We know the comment was written *BEFORE* Wittgenstein had
>>>>>> actually read Gödel's paper, so it was based on some second-hand
>>>>>> summary of the paper which he had encountered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) We know that Wittgenstein *DID* eventually read Gödel's paper,
>>>>>> and that after reading it he did not make any attempt to publish
>>>>>> this 'criticism' of Gödel, nor did he mention it again in any of
>>>>>> his known notebooks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My view on Gödel is totally summed up by Wittgenstein.
>>>>> I formed Wittgenstein's complete view long before I ever heard of him.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know what Wittgenstein 'complete view' actually was. No
>>>> one other than Wittgenstein knows this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because I formed this same view myself independently of Wittgenstein
>>> I can say that his quoted words in my paper form a 100% complete
>>> rebuttal that Gödel found a sentence that is both true and
>>> unprovable. It is simply unprovable because it is untrue.
>>
>> It is quite possible for two people to independently reach the same
>> wrong conclusion. So the above hardly constitutes an argument.
>>
>
> It is very easy to see that true and unprovable is impossible once one
> comprehends the self evident truth regrading how analytic truth itself
> actually works.

On 2/23/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2022 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 2/23/22 12:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from Germany.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like assuming that someone must be from Mountain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated problems
>>>>>>>>>>>>> into basic elements and then reassemble them from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>>>>>>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have
>>>>>>>>> perfectly summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the
>>>>>>>>> philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the
>>>>>>>>> philosophy of language.
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of
>>>>>>>>> logicians and mathematicians. He understood these things at the
>>>>>>>>> deepest philosophical level. He was very famous in his day for
>>>>>>>>> his knowledge of the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to
>>>>>>>>> explain the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and
>>>>>>>>> asserts that Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof." In other words his proof has the
>>>>>>>>> exact same basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as the
>>>>>>>>> "liar antinomy".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer"
>>>>>>>>> because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar
>>>>>>>>> paradox Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>>>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the
>>>>>>>> complexities of the problem. B
>>>>>>> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made
>>>>>>> (his view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply
>>>>>>> utterly clueless about the deep analysis of these things, you
>>>>>>> only know them by rote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wittgenstein  is quoted on page 6
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His Quote that you highlight:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved in Russell's
>>>>>> system; and 'false in Russell's system' means:the opposite has
>>>>>> been proved in Russell's system
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is not a correct statement.
>>>>> So then what could 'True in Russell's system' mean ???
>>>>
>>>> You'd have to ask Wittgenstein that.
>>>>
>>>> You'd also have to ask him why he felt this had any relevance to
>>>> Gödel's Theorem since Gödel's paper doesn't use the expression 'True
>>>> in Russell's System'. In fact, it does not mention or discuss truth
>>>> at all.
>>>>
>>>> As has been pointed out to you, the Wittgenstein quote you are so
>>>> enamoured with was taken from a set of notebooks which were never
>>>> intended for publication. They were essentially Wittgenstein
>>>> 'thinking out loud', and contain both worthwhile ideas which he
>>>> later expanded upon and published as well as half-baked ideas which
>>>> he clearly came up with before his morning coffee.
>>>>
>>>> We'll never know how Wittgenstein came to view this particular
>>>> paragraph if he later revisited it, but there are two things of
>>>> which we are absolutely certain.
>>>>
>>>> (1) We know the comment was written *BEFORE* Wittgenstein had
>>>> actually read Gödel's paper, so it was based on some second-hand
>>>> summary of the paper which he had encountered.
>>>>
>>>> (2) We know that Wittgenstein *DID* eventually read Gödel's paper,
>>>> and that after reading it he did not make any attempt to publish
>>>> this 'criticism' of Gödel, nor did he mention it again in any of his
>>>> known notebooks.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> My view on Gödel is totally summed up by Wittgenstein.
>>> I formed Wittgenstein's complete view long before I ever heard of him.
>>>
>>> Note that Haskell Curry is quoted before Wittgenstein has a
>>> comparable notion of what "true in a formal system" means.
>>>
>>> Let 𝓣 be such a theory. Then the elementary statements which belong
>>> to 𝓣 we shall call the elementary theorems of 𝓣; we also say that
>>> these elementary statements are true for 𝓣. Thus, given 𝓣, an
>>> elementary theorem is an elementary statement which is true...
>>>
>>> Olcott's true in a formal system 𝓣 is exactly Curry's elementary
>>> theorems of 𝓣 and statements of 𝓣 derived by applying truth
>>> preserving operations beginning with Curry's elementary theorems of
>>> 𝓣 as premises.
>>>
>>> When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations
>>> you always necessarily end up with truth.
>>>
>>
>> And if YOUR concept of what Truth means doesn't match what someone
>> else is using, it doesn't mean you get to force your definition onto
>> their work. That a Fallacy And Invalid Logic, i.e. FAIL.
>>
>
> Truth <is what it is> one either gets this notion correctly or one does
> not. I am correcting the divergence of classical and symbolic logic from
> correct reasoning.

On 2/23/22 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/23/22 6:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2022 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/22/22 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2022 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/22/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this in the header that will get rid of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you were claiming the poster in question was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Germany. That's like assuming that someone must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creative possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from first principles,” the idea is to break down
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated problems into basic elements and then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not correspond to conventional wisdom because I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected the errors in the philosophical underpinnings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this conventional wisdom. People acting like sheep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that I am wrong because they are attached to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have is gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they simply do not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conform to the RULES of the field. They just are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truths, as truths by definition, conform to reality, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a logical field, that includes its rules and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Gibberish', they are pointing out that you are BREAKING
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE RULES of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeating pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though you yourself already acknowledged that it is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is aborted because halting is required to reach a final
>>>>>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> countless times you must either be a liar or have actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> brain damage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach
>>>>>>>>>>>> the final state because you give up when your machine aborts
>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which means that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can't possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn because it
>>>>>>> is infinitely recursive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then H can't have aborted its simulation, so it didn't answer, and
>>>>>> it FAILED.
>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>
>>>> This doesn't present the pattern you just claim, so you just
>>>> committed that fallacy of the Red Herring.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you can't tell that the above is very obviously an infinite loop
>>> you are far too ignorant to have any chance of providing anything
>>> close to an accurate review of my work.
>>>
>>
>> You keep up that Fallacious And Invalid Logic and some day someone
>> might beleive you.
>>
>> I NEVER said that it is impossible to detect SOME infinite loops.
>>
>> I said that H can't correctly detect an infinite loop in H^ and abort
>> its simulation to report it, because in doing so H breaks the loop so
>> it doesn't exist.
>
> That is freaking nuts.
>
> Just like a compiler that stops compiling when there are compile errors
> a halt decider stops simulating when there are infinite execution
> errors. You can't be that stupid so you must be a liar.
>

On 2/23/2022 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/23/22 10:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 11:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-22 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Germany. That's like assuming that someone must be from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ground up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>>>>>>>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have
>>>>>>>>>> perfectly summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic,
>>>>>>>>>> the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the
>>>>>>>>>> philosophy of language.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of
>>>>>>>>>> logicians and mathematicians. He understood these things at
>>>>>>>>>> the deepest philosophical level. He was very famous in his day
>>>>>>>>>> for his knowledge of the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to
>>>>>>>>>> explain the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and
>>>>>>>>>> asserts that Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof." In other words his proof has
>>>>>>>>>> the exact same basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as
>>>>>>>>>> the "liar antinomy".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer"
>>>>>>>>>> because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar
>>>>>>>>>> paradox Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the
>>>>>>>>> complexities of the problem. B
>>>>>>>> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made
>>>>>>>> (his view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply
>>>>>>>> utterly clueless about the deep analysis of these things, you
>>>>>>>> only know them by rote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein  is quoted on page 6
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His Quote that you highlight:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved in
>>>>>>> Russell's system; and 'false in Russell's system' means:the
>>>>>>> opposite has been proved in Russell's system
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is not a correct statement.
>>>>>> So then what could 'True in Russell's system' mean ???
>>>>>
>>>>> You'd have to ask Wittgenstein that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You'd also have to ask him why he felt this had any relevance to
>>>>> Gödel's Theorem since Gödel's paper doesn't use the expression
>>>>> 'True in Russell's System'. In fact, it does not mention or discuss
>>>>> truth at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> As has been pointed out to you, the Wittgenstein quote you are so
>>>>> enamoured with was taken from a set of notebooks which were never
>>>>> intended for publication. They were essentially Wittgenstein
>>>>> 'thinking out loud', and contain both worthwhile ideas which he
>>>>> later expanded upon and published as well as half-baked ideas which
>>>>> he clearly came up with before his morning coffee.
>>>>>
>>>>> We'll never know how Wittgenstein came to view this particular
>>>>> paragraph if he later revisited it, but there are two things of
>>>>> which we are absolutely certain.
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) We know the comment was written *BEFORE* Wittgenstein had
>>>>> actually read Gödel's paper, so it was based on some second-hand
>>>>> summary of the paper which he had encountered.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) We know that Wittgenstein *DID* eventually read Gödel's paper,
>>>>> and that after reading it he did not make any attempt to publish
>>>>> this 'criticism' of Gödel, nor did he mention it again in any of
>>>>> his known notebooks.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My view on Gödel is totally summed up by Wittgenstein.
>>>> I formed Wittgenstein's complete view long before I ever heard of him.
>>>
>>> You don't know what Wittgenstein 'complete view' actually was. No one
>>> other than Wittgenstein knows this.
>>>
>>
>> Because I formed this same view myself independently of Wittgenstein I
>> can say that his quoted words in my paper form a 100% complete
>> rebuttal that Gödel found a sentence that is both true and unprovable.
>> It is simply unprovable because it is untrue.
>>
>>> What you are really saying is that you formed some view and then
>>> interpreted one of Wittgenstein's remarks in terms of that view.
>>>
>>>> Note that Haskell Curry is quoted before Wittgenstein has a
>>>> comparable notion of what "true in a formal system" means.
>>>>
>>>> Let 𝓣 be such a theory. Then the elementary statements which belong
>>>> to 𝓣 we shall call the elementary theorems of 𝓣; we also say that
>>>> these elementary statements are true for 𝓣. Thus, given 𝓣, an
>>>> elementary theorem is an elementary statement which is true...
>>>>
>>>> Olcott's true in a formal system 𝓣 is exactly Curry's elementary
>>>> theorems of 𝓣 and statements of 𝓣 derived by applying truth
>>>> preserving operations beginning with Curry's elementary theorems of
>>>> 𝓣 as premises.
>>>>
>>>> When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations
>>>> you always necessarily end up with truth.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Gödel, since his theorem was
>>> not concerned with truth and made no mention of truth at all.
>>>
>>> André
>>
>> It has everything to do with all undecidable propositions.
>>
>> Undecidable propositions are simply not truth bearers in the same way
>> that the following sentence is neither true nor false: "What time is it?"
>
> Excpet that they are. The Computation H^ applied to <H^> will ALWAYS
> either Halt or Not Halt, and the exact value is determinable for any
> given H if it answers the question H <H^> <H^>.
>
> Thus it IS a Truth Bearer.
>

On 2022-02-23 13:57, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2022 1:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-02-23 08:13, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2022 11:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-22 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:

<snippage

>>> Because I formed this same view myself independently of Wittgenstein
>>> I can say that his quoted words in my paper form a 100% complete
>>> rebuttal that Gödel found a sentence that is both true and
>>> unprovable. It is simply unprovable because it is untrue.
>>
>> It is quite possible for two people to independently reach the same
>> wrong conclusion. So the above hardly constitutes an argument.
>>
>
> It is very easy to see that true and unprovable is impossible once one
> comprehends the self evident truth regrading how analytic truth itself
> actually works.

Which 'self-evident truth' is that? Note that you have a bad track
record of assuming that things which are demonstrably false are
'self-evidently true'.

Note also that Gödel was not talking about analytic truth. He was
talking about theories of arithmetic. The analytic/synthetic distinction
is one made when discussing philosophy of language which deals with
entirely different questions than arithmetic does.

Different fields often use similar terms with subtly different meanings.
You can't just assume that it is possible to import concepts from one
field to another.

> Most people "know" that a statement is true on the basis that someone
> that they trust told them this statement is true. Most people here
> "know" that I must be wrong simply because they trust that Gödel is
> correct.

Or, more likely, because they actually read the proof (which you have
admitted to not having done) and found it compelling.

>>>> What you are really saying is that you formed some view and then
>>>> interpreted one of Wittgenstein's remarks in terms of that view.
>>>>
>>>>> Note that Haskell Curry is quoted before Wittgenstein has a
>>>>> comparable notion of what "true in a formal system" means.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let 𝓣 be such a theory. Then the elementary statements which
>>>>> belong to 𝓣 we shall call the elementary theorems of 𝓣; we also
>>>>> say that these elementary statements are true for 𝓣. Thus, given
>>>>> 𝓣, an elementary theorem is an elementary statement which is true...
>>>>>
>>>>> Olcott's true in a formal system 𝓣 is exactly Curry's elementary
>>>>> theorems of 𝓣 and statements of 𝓣 derived by applying truth
>>>>> preserving operations beginning with Curry's elementary theorems of
>>>>> 𝓣 as premises.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving
>>>>> operations you always necessarily end up with truth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Gödel, since his theorem was
>>>> not concerned with truth and made no mention of truth at all.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>
>>> It has everything to do with all undecidable propositions.
>>>
>>> Undecidable propositions are simply not truth bearers
>>
>> The above claim is simply false. It is not consistent with the
>> standard definitions of 'undecidable' and 'truth bearer'.
>
> It is consistent with the way that <truth> really works, thus
> superseding and overriding all of the misconceptions that seem to
> contradict it.

I have no reason to believe that you have any understanding of how truth
'really works'.

>>
>> Moreover, it also doesn't follow from your above claim that "When you
>> start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations you always
>> necessarily end up with truth." So you're basically presenting a
>> non-sequitur.
>>
>
> Something that 100% perfectly logically follows is utterly ridiculously
> characterized as non-sequitur.

If you think the latter follows from the former you then you need a
course in remedial logic.

>
>>  > in the same way that the following sentence is neither true nor false:
>>  > "What time is it?"
>>
>> That sentence is not a proposition. Gödels paper is concerned with
>> undecidable *propositions*. And it isn't concerned with natural
>> language at all.
>>
>
> I wanted to make a very clear example of an expression of language that
> very obviously cannot be resolved to true or false. Example form formal
> language that are not truth bearers are placed in the incorrect category
> of undecidable.

There is no category in formal systems analogous to interrogatives.

You seem to not grasp the distinction between ontology and epistemology.
Whether we can *determine* whether a statement is true or false is an
epistemological issue which has no bearing at all on whether the
statement actually *is* true or false.

> Flibble is correct in that the reason these things are not properly
> resolved is category error. When one assumes a term-of-the-art
> definition that has hidden incoherence then these terms-of-the-art make
> their own error inexpressible.
>
> The strong version, or linguistic determinism, says that language
> determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine
> cognitive categories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

Both a mischaracterization and utterly irrelevant.

>>> All expressions of formal or natural language that apply only truth
>>> preserving operations beginning with a set of premises known to be
>>> true (such as Haskell Curry's elementary theorems) are sound, else
>>> unsound.
>>
>> Oh dear. You really are confused. You're making numerous category
>> errors above. Soundness is not a property of arguments, not
>> propositions (which is what Gödel is concerned with).
>
> I will use more generic language that has not been overridden idiomatic
> terms-of-the-art meanings.
>
> expressions of language that were derived by applying truth preserving
> operations to expressions of language known to be true necessarily
> derive true expressions of language.
>
>> And 'expressions of formal or natural language' don't 'apply truth
>> preserving operations'.
>>
>
> If I have a cat then I have an animal applies the truth preserving
> operation Is-A-Type_Of(cat, animal) on the basis of a knowledge ontology
> that specifies all of the general knowledge.
>
>>> All expressions of formal or natural language that apply only truth
>>> preserving operations beginning with a set of premises are valid,
>>> else invalid.
>>
>> That sentence is incoherent.
>>
>
> If one applies only truth preserving operations to a set of true
> expressions of language then true expressions of language are derived.

If one starts with true premises and uses valid deductive rules one is
guaranteed to arrive at true conclusions. That does *NOT* entail that
every true statement can be derived from some set of axioms using valid
deductive rules.

> If one applies only truth preserving operations to a set of expressions
> of language then logically entailed expressions of language are derived.
>
>>> valid reasoning requires conclusions to be a necessary consequence of
>>> the premises.
>>
>> Which is not contradicted by Gödel. He would agree with this.
>>
>> André
>
> The key mistake is that he believes that his sentence is true and
> unprovable which is analogous to a purebred cat that is a kind of dog.

Gödel makes no claims at all about the truth or falsehood of Gödel
sentences.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On 2/23/22 7:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2022 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/23/22 10:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2022 11:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-22 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this in the header that will get rid of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Germany. That's like assuming that someone must be from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creative possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first principles,” the idea is to break down complicated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the ground up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>>>>>>>>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have
>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic,
>>>>>>>>>>> the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and
>>>>>>>>>>> the philosophy of language.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of
>>>>>>>>>>> logicians and mathematicians. He understood these things at
>>>>>>>>>>> the deepest philosophical level. He was very famous in his
>>>>>>>>>>> day for his knowledge of the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to
>>>>>>>>>>> explain the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and
>>>>>>>>>>> asserts that Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof." In other words his proof has
>>>>>>>>>>> the exact same basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to
>>>>>>>>>>> as the "liar antinomy".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth
>>>>>>>>>>> bearer" because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar
>>>>>>>>>>> paradox Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the
>>>>>>>>>> complexities of the problem. B
>>>>>>>>> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made
>>>>>>>>> (his view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply
>>>>>>>>> utterly clueless about the deep analysis of these things, you
>>>>>>>>> only know them by rote.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein  is quoted on page 6
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His Quote that you highlight:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved in
>>>>>>>> Russell's system; and 'false in Russell's system' means:the
>>>>>>>> opposite has been proved in Russell's system
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is not a correct statement.
>>>>>>> So then what could 'True in Russell's system' mean ???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'd have to ask Wittgenstein that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'd also have to ask him why he felt this had any relevance to
>>>>>> Gödel's Theorem since Gödel's paper doesn't use the expression
>>>>>> 'True in Russell's System'. In fact, it does not mention or
>>>>>> discuss truth at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As has been pointed out to you, the Wittgenstein quote you are so
>>>>>> enamoured with was taken from a set of notebooks which were never
>>>>>> intended for publication. They were essentially Wittgenstein
>>>>>> 'thinking out loud', and contain both worthwhile ideas which he
>>>>>> later expanded upon and published as well as half-baked ideas
>>>>>> which he clearly came up with before his morning coffee.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We'll never know how Wittgenstein came to view this particular
>>>>>> paragraph if he later revisited it, but there are two things of
>>>>>> which we are absolutely certain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) We know the comment was written *BEFORE* Wittgenstein had
>>>>>> actually read Gödel's paper, so it was based on some second-hand
>>>>>> summary of the paper which he had encountered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) We know that Wittgenstein *DID* eventually read Gödel's paper,
>>>>>> and that after reading it he did not make any attempt to publish
>>>>>> this 'criticism' of Gödel, nor did he mention it again in any of
>>>>>> his known notebooks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My view on Gödel is totally summed up by Wittgenstein.
>>>>> I formed Wittgenstein's complete view long before I ever heard of him.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know what Wittgenstein 'complete view' actually was. No
>>>> one other than Wittgenstein knows this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because I formed this same view myself independently of Wittgenstein
>>> I can say that his quoted words in my paper form a 100% complete
>>> rebuttal that Gödel found a sentence that is both true and
>>> unprovable. It is simply unprovable because it is untrue.
>>>
>>>> What you are really saying is that you formed some view and then
>>>> interpreted one of Wittgenstein's remarks in terms of that view.
>>>>
>>>>> Note that Haskell Curry is quoted before Wittgenstein has a
>>>>> comparable notion of what "true in a formal system" means.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let 𝓣 be such a theory. Then the elementary statements which
>>>>> belong to 𝓣 we shall call the elementary theorems of 𝓣; we also
>>>>> say that these elementary statements are true for 𝓣. Thus, given
>>>>> 𝓣, an elementary theorem is an elementary statement which is true...
>>>>>
>>>>> Olcott's true in a formal system 𝓣 is exactly Curry's elementary
>>>>> theorems of 𝓣 and statements of 𝓣 derived by applying truth
>>>>> preserving operations beginning with Curry's elementary theorems of
>>>>> 𝓣 as premises.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving
>>>>> operations you always necessarily end up with truth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Gödel, since his theorem was
>>>> not concerned with truth and made no mention of truth at all.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>
>>> It has everything to do with all undecidable propositions.
>>>
>>> Undecidable propositions are simply not truth bearers in the same way
>>> that the following sentence is neither true nor false: "What time is
>>> it?"
>>
>> Excpet that they are. The Computation H^ applied to <H^> will ALWAYS
>> either Halt or Not Halt, and the exact value is determinable for any
>> given H if it answers the question H <H^> <H^>.
>>
>> Thus it IS a Truth Bearer.
>>
>
> I had always thought that it behaved like the liar paradox because it
> was essentially modeled after the liar paradox. It was only in recent
> years that I realized that unlike mathematical propositions that just
> sit there, computations have intelligence that can overcome pathological
> self-reference.
>
> So in this case you are half right. The halting problem counter-examples
> are truth bearers, yet only because they are decidable.

On 2/23/2022 6:52 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-23 13:57, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2022 1:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-23 08:13, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-22 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>
> <snippage
>
>>>> Because I formed this same view myself independently of Wittgenstein
>>>> I can say that his quoted words in my paper form a 100% complete
>>>> rebuttal that Gödel found a sentence that is both true and
>>>> unprovable. It is simply unprovable because it is untrue.
>>>
>>> It is quite possible for two people to independently reach the same
>>> wrong conclusion. So the above hardly constitutes an argument.
>>>
>>
>> It is very easy to see that true and unprovable is impossible once one
>> comprehends the self evident truth regrading how analytic truth itself
>> actually works.
>
> Which 'self-evident truth' is that?

The actual knowledge ontology structure of the body of analytic knowledge.

> Note that you have a bad track
> record of assuming that things which are demonstrably false are
> 'self-evidently true'.
>

I do use some terminology somewhat inconsistently with its conventional
meaning to overcome [strong linguistic determinism] that makes the ideas
that I need to express otherwise inexpressible.

strong version, or linguistic determinism, says that language determines
thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive
categories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

> Note also that Gödel was not talking about analytic truth. He was
> talking about theories of arithmetic.

The body of analytic truth encompasses all of mathematics and logic and
only excludes knowledge that can only be validated by input from the
sense organs.

> The analytic/synthetic distinction
> is one made when discussing philosophy of language which deals with
> entirely different questions than arithmetic does.
>

The notion of analytic truth is the foundation of all mathematics and
logic.

> Different fields often use similar terms with subtly different meanings.
> You can't just assume that it is possible to import concepts from one
> field to another.
>

If one field overloads the term "true" to include expressions of
language that are not true, then it errs.

>
>> Most people "know" that a statement is true on the basis that someone
>> that they trust told them this statement is true. Most people here
>> "know" that I must be wrong simply because they trust that Gödel is
>> correct.
>
> Or, more likely, because they actually read the proof (which you have
> admitted to not having done) and found it compelling.
>

If its conclusion is incorrect then all of the steps can be ignored.

>>>>> What you are really saying is that you formed some view and then
>>>>> interpreted one of Wittgenstein's remarks in terms of that view.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that Haskell Curry is quoted before Wittgenstein has a
>>>>>> comparable notion of what "true in a formal system" means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let 𝓣 be such a theory. Then the elementary statements which
>>>>>> belong to 𝓣 we shall call the elementary theorems of 𝓣; we also
>>>>>> say that these elementary statements are true for 𝓣. Thus, given
>>>>>> 𝓣, an elementary theorem is an elementary statement which is true...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Olcott's true in a formal system 𝓣 is exactly Curry's elementary
>>>>>> theorems of 𝓣 and statements of 𝓣 derived by applying truth
>>>>>> preserving operations beginning with Curry's elementary theorems
>>>>>> of 𝓣 as premises.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving
>>>>>> operations you always necessarily end up with truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Gödel, since his theorem
>>>>> was not concerned with truth and made no mention of truth at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>
>>>> It has everything to do with all undecidable propositions.
>>>>
>>>> Undecidable propositions are simply not truth bearers
>>>
>>> The above claim is simply false. It is not consistent with the
>>> standard definitions of 'undecidable' and 'truth bearer'.
>>
>> It is consistent with the way that <truth> really works, thus
>> superseding and overriding all of the misconceptions that seem to
>> contradict it.
>
> I have no reason to believe that you have any understanding of how truth
> 'really works'.
>

Analytic truth is nothing more that a semantically connected set of
expressions of language each one known to be true.

>>>
>>> Moreover, it also doesn't follow from your above claim that "When you
>>> start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations you
>>> always necessarily end up with truth." So you're basically presenting
>>> a non-sequitur.
>>>
>>
>> Something that 100% perfectly logically follows is utterly
>> ridiculously characterized as non-sequitur.
>
> If you think the latter follows from the former you then you need a
> course in remedial logic.

If you start with expressions of language that are known to be true
(such as Haskell Curry's elementary theorems) and only apply truth
preserving operations you don't end up with peanut butter.

>>
>>>  > in the same way that the following sentence is neither true nor
>>> false:
>>>  > "What time is it?"
>>>
>>> That sentence is not a proposition. Gödels paper is concerned with
>>> undecidable *propositions*. And it isn't concerned with natural
>>> language at all.
>>>
>>
>> I wanted to make a very clear example of an expression of language
>> that very obviously cannot be resolved to true or false. Example form
>> formal language that are not truth bearers are placed in the incorrect
>> category of undecidable.
>
> There is no category in formal systems analogous to interrogatives.

There is one yet not one that you are aware of.

This is not my idea:
Questions are merely propositions with a missing piece.

> You seem to not grasp the distinction between ontology and epistemology.
> Whether we can *determine* whether a statement is true or false is an
> epistemological issue which has no bearing at all on whether the
> statement actually *is* true or false.
>

In computer science and information science, an ontology encompasses a
representation, formal naming, and definition of the categories,
properties, and relations between the concepts, data, and entities that
substantiate one, many, or all domains of discourse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

>> Flibble is correct in that the reason these things are not properly
>> resolved is category error. When one assumes a term-of-the-art
>> definition that has hidden incoherence then these terms-of-the-art
>> make their own error inexpressible.
>>
>> The strong version, or linguistic determinism, says that language
>> determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine
>> cognitive categories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
>
> Both a mischaracterization and utterly irrelevant.
>

A theory T is incomplete if and only if there is some sentence φ such
that (T ⊬ φ) and (T ⊬ ¬φ).

The above simply ignores the case where a syntactically correct
expression of a formal language is unprovable simply because at the
semantic level it is self-contradictory.

>>>> All expressions of formal or natural language that apply only truth
>>>> preserving operations beginning with a set of premises known to be
>>>> true (such as Haskell Curry's elementary theorems) are sound, else
>>>> unsound.
>>>
>>> Oh dear. You really are confused. You're making numerous category
>>> errors above. Soundness is not a property of arguments, not
>>> propositions (which is what Gödel is concerned with).
>>
>> I will use more generic language that has not been overridden
>> idiomatic terms-of-the-art meanings.
>>
>> expressions of language that were derived by applying truth preserving
>> operations to expressions of language known to be true necessarily
>> derive true expressions of language.
>>
>>> And 'expressions of formal or natural language' don't 'apply truth
>>> preserving operations'.
>>>
>>
>> If I have a cat then I have an animal applies the truth preserving
>> operation Is-A-Type_Of(cat, animal) on the basis of a knowledge
>> ontology that specifies all of the general knowledge.
>>
>>>> All expressions of formal or natural language that apply only truth
>>>> preserving operations beginning with a set of premises are valid,
>>>> else invalid.
>>>
>>> That sentence is incoherent.
>>>
>>
>> If one applies only truth preserving operations to a set of true
>> expressions of language then true expressions of language are derived.
>
> If one starts with true premises and uses valid deductive rules one is
> guaranteed to arrive at true conclusions.
> That does *NOT* entail that
> every true statement can be derived from some set of axioms using valid
> deductive rules.
>

On 2/23/2022 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/23/22 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/23/22 6:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/22/22 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages with this in the header that will get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you were claiming the poster in question was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Germany. That's like assuming that someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creative possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from first principles,” the idea is to break down
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated problems into basic elements and then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not correspond to conventional wisdom because I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have corrected the errors in the philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underpinnings of this conventional wisdom. People
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acting like sheep say that I am wrong because they are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have is gibberish double talk anchored in the fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they simply do not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conform to the RULES of the field. They just are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truths, as truths by definition, conform to reality,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in a logical field, that includes its rules and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Gibberish', they are pointing out that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BREAKING THE RULES of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeating pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though you yourself already acknowledged that it is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not it is aborted because halting is required to reach a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countless times you must either be a liar or have actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brain damage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the final state because you give up when your machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which means that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can't possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn because it
>>>>>>>> is infinitely recursive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then H can't have aborted its simulation, so it didn't answer,
>>>>>>> and it FAILED.
>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>
>>>>> This doesn't present the pattern you just claim, so you just
>>>>> committed that fallacy of the Red Herring.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you can't tell that the above is very obviously an infinite loop
>>>> you are far too ignorant to have any chance of providing anything
>>>> close to an accurate review of my work.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You keep up that Fallacious And Invalid Logic and some day someone
>>> might beleive you.
>>>
>>> I NEVER said that it is impossible to detect SOME infinite loops.
>>>
>>> I said that H can't correctly detect an infinite loop in H^ and abort
>>> its simulation to report it, because in doing so H breaks the loop so
>>> it doesn't exist.
>>
>> That is freaking nuts.
>>
>> Just like a compiler that stops compiling when there are compile errors
>> a halt decider stops simulating when there are infinite execution
>> errors. You can't be that stupid so you must be a liar.
>>
>
> Your problem is you just don't understand what a Turing Machine is.
>
> H only partially simulates what the machine does.

On 2/23/22 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2022 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/23/22 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/22 6:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2022 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/22/22 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages with this in the header that will get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't remember who) already pointed out this error
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to you when you were claiming the poster in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question was from Germany. That's like assuming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that someone must be from Mountain View CA since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reverse-engineer complicated problems and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unleash creative possibility. Sometimes called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> break down complicated problems into basic elements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not correspond to conventional wisdom because I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have corrected the errors in the philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underpinnings of this conventional wisdom. People
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acting like sheep say that I am wrong because they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they have is gibberish double talk anchored in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that they simply do not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conform to the RULES of the field. They just are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truths, as truths by definition, conform to reality,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in a logical field, that includes its rules and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves then this inconsistency cannot be ignored
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and must be resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Gibberish', they are pointing out that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BREAKING THE RULES of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeating pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though you yourself already acknowledged that it is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not it is aborted because halting is required to reach a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countless times you must either be a liar or have actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brain damage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the final state because you give up when your machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which means that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can't possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn because
>>>>>>>>> it is infinitely recursive.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then H can't have aborted its simulation, so it didn't answer,
>>>>>>>> and it FAILED.
>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
>>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This doesn't present the pattern you just claim, so you just
>>>>>> committed that fallacy of the Red Herring.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can't tell that the above is very obviously an infinite loop
>>>>> you are far too ignorant to have any chance of providing anything
>>>>> close to an accurate review of my work.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You keep up that Fallacious And Invalid Logic and some day someone
>>>> might beleive you.
>>>>
>>>> I NEVER said that it is impossible to detect SOME infinite loops.
>>>>
>>>> I said that H can't correctly detect an infinite loop in H^ and
>>>> abort its simulation to report it, because in doing so H breaks the
>>>> loop so it doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> That is freaking nuts.
>>>
>>> Just like a compiler that stops compiling when there are compile errors
>>> a halt decider stops simulating when there are infinite execution
>>> errors. You can't be that stupid so you must be a liar.
>>>
>>
>> Your problem is you just don't understand what a Turing Machine is.
>>
>> H only partially simulates what the machine does.
>
> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulates its input until it proves that this input
> cannot possibly reach its final state.
>