Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Hackers of the world, unite!


devel / comp.theory / Re: Category error

SubjectAuthor
* Category errorMr Flibble
+* Category errorolcott
|`* Category errorRichard Damon
| `* Category errorolcott
|  `* Category errorRichard Damon
|   `* Category errorolcott
|    `* Category errorAndré G. Isaak
|     `* Category errorolcott
|      `* Category errorRichard Damon
|       +* Category errorAndré G. Isaak
|       |`* Category errorolcott
|       | `* Category errorAndré G. Isaak
|       |  +- Category errorRichard Damon
|       |  `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   +* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]André G. Isaak
|       |   |`* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   | +* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]André G. Isaak
|       |   | |`* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   | | `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]André G. Isaak
|       |   | |  `- Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   | `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |   |  `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   |   `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |   |    `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   |     `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |   |      `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   |       `- Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |   `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |    `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |     `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |      `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |       `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |        `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |         `- Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       `* Category errorolcott
|        +* Category errorAndré G. Isaak
|        |`* Category errorolcott
|        | `* Category errorAndré G. Isaak
|        |  `* Category errorolcott
|        |   +* Category errorAndré G. Isaak
|        |   |`- Category errorolcott
|        |   `* Category errorRichard Damon
|        |    `* Category errorolcott
|        |     `* Category errorRichard Damon
|        |      `* Category errorolcott
|        |       `- Category errorRichard Damon
|        `- Category errorRichard Damon
+* Category errorwij
|`* Category errorMr Flibble
| `- Category errorolcott
`* Category errorMikko
 `* Category errorolcott
  +* Category errorRichard Damon
  |`* Category errorolcott
  | `- Category errorRichard Damon
  `* Category errorBen
   +* Category errorolcott
   |+- Category errorRichard Damon
   |`- Category errorBen
   `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
    +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Richard Damon
    `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Ben
     `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
      +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Richard Damon
      +* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
      |`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Malcolm McLean
      | `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
      |  +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Richard Damon
      |  `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Malcolm McLean
      |   `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
      |    `- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Richard Damon
      `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Ben
       `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
        +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Richard Damon
        `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Ben
         `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
          +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Richard Damon
          +* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)olcott
          |+- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)Richard Damon
          |`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)Ben
          | `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)olcott
          |  +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)olcott
          |  +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)Richard Damon
          |  `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)Ben
          |   `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)olcott
          |    +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)Richard Damon
          |    `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)Ben
          |     +* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)olcott
          |     |`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)Ben
          |     | `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  +* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ]Ben
          |     |  |+* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  ||+* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[Richard Damon
          |     |  |||+* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  ||||`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[Richard Damon
          |     |  |||| `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  ||||  `- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ]Richard Damon
          |     |  |||`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[Malcolm McLean
          |     |  ||| `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  |||  `- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[Richard Damon
          |     |  ||`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ]Ben
          |     |  |+* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  |+* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  |`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  `- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ]Richard Damon
          |     `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)olcott
          +* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Python
          `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Ben

Pages:123456789101112
Category error

<20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32476&group=comp.theory#32476

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Category error
Message-ID: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corp
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 8
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 16:05:55 UTC
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 17:05:55 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 948
 by: Mr Flibble - Sat, 14 May 2022 16:05 UTC

The other day I claimed there was a category error in the halting
theorem proof but I was mistaken: the category error actually exists in
Pete Olcott's understanding of the proof which manifests as an infinite
recursion in his simulation; his simulation is thus invalid and doesn't
refute anything of substance.

/Flibble

Re: Category error

<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32479&group=comp.theory#32479

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 11:56:26 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 11:56:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 24
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-pZddCVpmwVHMrmmqxFNe4pUpBusB88yT7wkE6GLPIhNIhOXW8J227ENluoi0ots4p7FKR1bSUn1DFiy!JrIQ6Yalvz1nO53FZz61drsRnDEY61+NxqU0OROtpTQS+Jvy34V6RCjarzD3jTgg5z/KuDo6Kl0=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2070
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 16:56 UTC

On 5/14/2022 11:05 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> The other day I claimed there was a category error in the halting
> theorem proof but I was mistaken: the category error actually exists in
> Pete Olcott's understanding of the proof which manifests as an infinite
> recursion in his simulation; his simulation is thus invalid and doesn't
> refute anything of substance.
>
> /Flibble
>

I stand by my claim that your use of the term: "category error" was a
brilliant new insight into Gödel's 1931 incompleteness and Tarski 1936
undefinability.

I refer to this same thing as a type mismatch error in that neither
Gödel's G nor Tarski's x are truth bearers thus cannot be proven because
they are semantically ill-formed propositions.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error

<11af32d5-8662-4c4f-abba-8369c5bd09ddn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32480&group=comp.theory#32480

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5bec:0:b0:45a:a030:cdc7 with SMTP id k12-20020ad45bec000000b0045aa030cdc7mr9211016qvc.93.1652548955780;
Sat, 14 May 2022 10:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:d8f:0:b0:2d7:ee4f:797b with SMTP id
137-20020a810d8f000000b002d7ee4f797bmr12133912ywn.14.1652548955630; Sat, 14
May 2022 10:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 10:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=124.218.76.41; posting-account=A1PyIwoAAACCahK0CVYFlDZG8JWzz_Go
NNTP-Posting-Host: 124.218.76.41
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <11af32d5-8662-4c4f-abba-8369c5bd09ddn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Category error
From: wynii...@gmail.com (wij)
Injection-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 17:22:35 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 2167
 by: wij - Sat, 14 May 2022 17:22 UTC

On Sunday, 15 May 2022 at 00:05:58 UTC+8, Mr Flibble wrote:
> The other day I claimed there was a category error in the halting
> theorem proof but I was mistaken: the category error actually exists in
> Pete Olcott's understanding of the proof which manifests as an infinite
> recursion in his simulation; his simulation is thus invalid and doesn't
> refute anything of substance.
>
> /Flibble

Pete Olcott lied. There has never ever been a real simulation program.
All rebuttals are (finally) made against nothing.

Pete Olcott's brain is fossilized. All he says have no basis, just 'talk':
1. Rebuttal the HP -> No real H to rebuttal !
2. Various kind of claims based on POOH (or tautology)
3. deque implement -> No real codes allow him to claim anything !
4. ...His brain seems now further fossilizing by starting to redefine his logic !

But PO is very well enjoying his belief that he is THE talented/genius who can
hit/see others cannot.
Any rebuttal only strengthens his belief. (IOW, everybody else is idiot).

As to the title "Category error", is that another 'theory' ?

Re: Category error

<20220514182406.000021b5@reddwarf.jmc>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32481&group=comp.theory#32481

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx06.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Category error
Message-ID: <20220514182406.000021b5@reddwarf.jmc>
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<11af32d5-8662-4c4f-abba-8369c5bd09ddn@googlegroups.com>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corp
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 9
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 17:24:06 UTC
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 18:24:06 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 937
 by: Mr Flibble - Sat, 14 May 2022 17:24 UTC

On Sat, 14 May 2022 10:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> wrote:

> As to the title "Category error", is that another 'theory' ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

/Flibble

Re: Category error

<vJqdnYi7AZjhe-L_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32483&group=comp.theory#32483

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 12:27:24 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 12:27:24 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<11af32d5-8662-4c4f-abba-8369c5bd09ddn@googlegroups.com>
<20220514182406.000021b5@reddwarf.jmc>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <20220514182406.000021b5@reddwarf.jmc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <vJqdnYi7AZjhe-L_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 26
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-jyozZsB6amfuJUwg40HoVnFllpmUX73Qhp0kATBf4xPfX966Xh9weBdRxhOipYO/QLxvQJ7uuyBTQyp!iXbXJO6rBan75nN8cX5laArjzOeYr0+OO2nW3dqCUiTQke37OTBCWkhwSQUdu3+GE2oTokqDb9A=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2021
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 17:27 UTC

On 5/14/2022 12:24 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 14 May 2022 10:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
> wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As to the title "Category error", is that another 'theory' ?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
>
> /Flibble
>

*A category mistake* or
*category error* or
*categorical mistake* or
*mistake of category*
is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a
particular category are presented as if they belong to a different
category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that
could not possibly have that property.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error

<tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32493&group=comp.theory#32493

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx44.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc> <tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 17:04:24 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2569
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 21:04 UTC

On 5/14/22 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 11:05 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> The other day I claimed there was a category error in the halting
>> theorem proof but I was mistaken: the category error actually exists in
>> Pete Olcott's understanding of the proof which manifests as an infinite
>> recursion in his simulation; his simulation is thus invalid and doesn't
>> refute anything of substance.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> I stand by my claim that your use of the term: "category error" was a
> brilliant new insight into Gödel's 1931 incompleteness and Tarski 1936
> undefinability.
>
> I refer to this same thing as a type mismatch error in that neither
> Gödel's G nor Tarski's x are truth bearers thus cannot be proven because
> they are semantically ill-formed propositions.
>

Except that they are, but you don't want to accept that, because you
define "Truth" as something it isn't

I will also point out that your statement is in contradiction to
something you said recently that you only talk about "Analytical Truth",
because "Truth Bearing" is NOT tied to being an Analytical Truth, but to
Truth in General. Every time you use that word, you prove your statement
to be a LIE.

An unprovable statement is still a Truth Bearer if the only possible
Truth Values for the statement are True or False.

The statement of the Collatz Conjecture is a Truth Bearer, even if it
turns out that the Collatz COnjecture is True but Unprovable.

You might not like that, But if it turns out that there is no actual N
that is a counter example, then it is True, even if the statement can
not be proven based on the existing axioms of the system.

Re: Category error

<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32495&group=comp.theory#32495

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 16:15:53 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 16:15:53 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 50
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-gGrJKS3lAxGJ66q5BMXlgjLgvv7+cmQv6ZrSYGnwJy70jcKdgi5G7vzT66XnlGDSb5soZoRzr2QRJ0H!gr30w0WAFUaHvP8dzGjle+Myise0/8Kn/Zl+SsFurblO3acAJ/gHB5JCXww123heKso+ZmXIfBY=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3267
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 21:15 UTC

On 5/14/2022 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 11:05 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> The other day I claimed there was a category error in the halting
>>> theorem proof but I was mistaken: the category error actually exists in
>>> Pete Olcott's understanding of the proof which manifests as an infinite
>>> recursion in his simulation; his simulation is thus invalid and doesn't
>>> refute anything of substance.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> I stand by my claim that your use of the term: "category error" was a
>> brilliant new insight into Gödel's 1931 incompleteness and Tarski 1936
>> undefinability.
>>
>> I refer to this same thing as a type mismatch error in that neither
>> Gödel's G nor Tarski's x are truth bearers thus cannot be proven
>> because they are semantically ill-formed propositions.
>>
>
> Except that they are, but you don't want to accept that, because you
> define "Truth" as something it isn't
>

G is not provable in F only because G is semantically incorrect in F.

> I will also point out that your statement is in contradiction to
> something you said recently that you only talk about "Analytical Truth",
> because "Truth Bearing" is NOT tied to being an Analytical Truth, but to
> Truth in General. Every time you use that word, you prove your statement
> to be a LIE.
>
> An unprovable statement is still a Truth Bearer if the only possible
> Truth Values for the statement are True or False.
>
> The statement of the Collatz Conjecture is a Truth Bearer, even if it
> turns out that the Collatz COnjecture is True but Unprovable.
>
> You might not like that, But if it turns out that there is no actual N
> that is a counter example, then it is True, even if the statement can
> not be proven based on the existing axioms of the system.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error

<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32497&group=comp.theory#32497

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 17:31:31 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3115
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 21:31 UTC

On 5/14/22 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 11:05 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> The other day I claimed there was a category error in the halting
>>>> theorem proof but I was mistaken: the category error actually exists in
>>>> Pete Olcott's understanding of the proof which manifests as an infinite
>>>> recursion in his simulation; his simulation is thus invalid and doesn't
>>>> refute anything of substance.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> I stand by my claim that your use of the term: "category error" was a
>>> brilliant new insight into Gödel's 1931 incompleteness and Tarski
>>> 1936 undefinability.
>>>
>>> I refer to this same thing as a type mismatch error in that neither
>>> Gödel's G nor Tarski's x are truth bearers thus cannot be proven
>>> because they are semantically ill-formed propositions.
>>>
>>
>> Except that they are, but you don't want to accept that, because you
>> define "Truth" as something it isn't
>>
>
> G is not provable in F only because G is semantically incorrect in F.

Nope, I don't thnk you have actually read what G is.G actually is a
fairly innocuous, if complected, mathematical formula asking if there
exsit interger roots (If I am remembering it correctly).

>
>> I will also point out that your statement is in contradiction to
>> something you said recently that you only talk about "Analytical
>> Truth", because "Truth Bearing" is NOT tied to being an Analytical
>> Truth, but to Truth in General. Every time you use that word, you
>> prove your statement to be a LIE.
>>
>> An unprovable statement is still a Truth Bearer if the only possible
>> Truth Values for the statement are True or False.
>>
>> The statement of the Collatz Conjecture is a Truth Bearer, even if it
>> turns out that the Collatz COnjecture is True but Unprovable.
>>
>> You might not like that, But if it turns out that there is no actual N
>> that is a counter example, then it is True, even if the statement can
>> not be proven based on the existing axioms of the system.
>
>

Re: Category error

<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32501&group=comp.theory#32501

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 16:59:40 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 16:59:40 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 70
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-dVVo1vsJ4l5eKGGKJMwMMFqad9G5iK5F74trGlpLysfEK4/f0fmhgmE74p/EN/pX3HjULE6vJxfzUxA!jwmIjkJyGfGqwqpMlPGgy4odXD0GocVsrFwUSLej1WsEeczFiMyoQrQ6yhDApMusjn/1GreP8Kg=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3940
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 21:59 UTC

On 5/14/2022 4:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 11:05 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> The other day I claimed there was a category error in the halting
>>>>> theorem proof but I was mistaken: the category error actually
>>>>> exists in
>>>>> Pete Olcott's understanding of the proof which manifests as an
>>>>> infinite
>>>>> recursion in his simulation; his simulation is thus invalid and
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> refute anything of substance.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I stand by my claim that your use of the term: "category error" was
>>>> a brilliant new insight into Gödel's 1931 incompleteness and Tarski
>>>> 1936 undefinability.
>>>>
>>>> I refer to this same thing as a type mismatch error in that neither
>>>> Gödel's G nor Tarski's x are truth bearers thus cannot be proven
>>>> because they are semantically ill-formed propositions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except that they are, but you don't want to accept that, because you
>>> define "Truth" as something it isn't
>>>
>>
>> G is not provable in F only because G is semantically incorrect in F.
>
> Nope, I don't thnk you have actually read what G is.G actually is a
> fairly innocuous, if complected, mathematical formula asking if there
> exsit interger roots (If I am remembering it correctly).
>

Gödel says:
We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
unprovability.

Which is the same self-contradictory bullshit as the liar paradox.

>>
>>> I will also point out that your statement is in contradiction to
>>> something you said recently that you only talk about "Analytical
>>> Truth", because "Truth Bearing" is NOT tied to being an Analytical
>>> Truth, but to Truth in General. Every time you use that word, you
>>> prove your statement to be a LIE.
>>>
>>> An unprovable statement is still a Truth Bearer if the only possible
>>> Truth Values for the statement are True or False.
>>>
>>> The statement of the Collatz Conjecture is a Truth Bearer, even if it
>>> turns out that the Collatz COnjecture is True but Unprovable.
>>>
>>> You might not like that, But if it turns out that there is no actual
>>> N that is a counter example, then it is True, even if the statement
>>> can not be proven based on the existing axioms of the system.
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error

<t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32502&group=comp.theory#32502

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Category error
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 16:07:36 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 22:07:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="08d0e8989edd32ba354c79093e08d1c8";
logging-data="26656"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/efRS7n1nq9lBYcHgSbh+/"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:02oJEx+sEYyuqcZdvs7KRflLH9Q=
In-Reply-To: <8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Sat, 14 May 2022 22:07 UTC

On 2022-05-14 15:59, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 4:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:

>>> G is not provable in F only because G is semantically incorrect in F.
>>
>> Nope, I don't thnk you have actually read what G is.G actually is a
>> fairly innocuous, if complected, mathematical formula asking if there
>> exsit interger roots (If I am remembering it correctly).
>>
>
> Gödel says:
> We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
> unprovability.

That's Gödel's commentary, not the actual content of G.

> Which is the same self-contradictory bullshit as the liar paradox.

Even if G did assert its own unprovability, there would be nothing
self-contradictory about this. A sentence which asserts its own falsity
is self-contradictory, one that asserts its own unprovability is not.

The big problem here is that you are clearly not Gödel's intended
audience. Gödel makes three crucial assumptions, none of which apply to you.

First, he assumes a certain minimal background in the field on the part
of his readership.

Second, he assumes that people reading his commentary are also following
along with the actual math.

And thirdly, he assumes his audience is actually making a good-faith
effort to actually understand what he is saying and will interpret his
comments accordingly rather than seizing on some misguided
interpretation which clearly does not match the actual math.

André

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

Re: Category error

<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32503&group=comp.theory#32503

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 17:21:08 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 17:21:08 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 88
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-GJ5TlsptuVfVz4FH7t5gbaTpHkX31jl3GdHuonxjFQnQGjhqB/n9OVCeUpRIsnR1RT79aiqxwMs90eP!sGqgmlTQ1FMCpsTO27KVXz3TzgfN381wMSRpW9VhiMXjWQZggaho+n7pbDcx6RCl/nRrBaRzrWE=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5038
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 22:21 UTC

On 5/14/2022 5:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-14 15:59, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 4:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>>>> G is not provable in F only because G is semantically incorrect in F.
>>>
>>> Nope, I don't thnk you have actually read what G is.G actually is a
>>> fairly innocuous, if complected, mathematical formula asking if there
>>> exsit interger roots (If I am remembering it correctly).
>>>
>>
>> Gödel says:
>> We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
>> unprovability.
>
> That's Gödel's commentary, not the actual content of G.
>
>> Which is the same self-contradictory bullshit as the liar paradox.
>
> Even if G did assert its own unprovability, there would be nothing
> self-contradictory about this.

8. I imagine someone asking my advice; he says: "I have constructed a
proposition (I will use 'P' to designate it) in Russell's symbolism,and
by means of certain definitions and transformations it can be so
interpreted that it says: 'P is not provable in Russell's system'. Must
I not say that this proposition on the one hand is true, and on the
other hand is unprovable? For suppose it were false; then it is true
that it is provable. And that surely cannot be! And if it is proved,
then it is proved that it is not provable. Thus it can only be true, but
unprovable. "

Just as we ask: " 'provable' in what system?", so we must also ask:"
'true' in what system?" '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.-Now what does your
"suppose it is false" mean? In the Russell sense it means 'suppose the
opposite is proved in Russell's system'; if that is your assumption, you
will now presumably give up the interpretation that it is unprovable.

And by 'this interpretation' I understand the translation into this
English sentence.-If you assume that the proposition is provable in
Russell's system, that means it' is true in the Russell sense, and the
interpretation "P is not provable" again has to be given up. If you
assume that the proposition is true in the Russell sense, the same thing
follows...

Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics
(Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England:
The MIT Press

> A sentence which asserts its own falsity
> is self-contradictory, one that asserts its own unprovability is not.
>

When an expression of language is asserting its own unprovability it is
also asserting that it is untrue in the same system that it is
unprovable. This means that F is not incomplete, it is merely that G is
untrue.

> The big problem here is that you are clearly not Gödel's intended
> audience. Gödel makes three crucial assumptions, none of which apply to
> you.
>
> First, he assumes a certain minimal background in the field on the part
> of his readership.
>
> Second, he assumes that people reading his commentary are also following
> along with the actual math.
>
> And thirdly, he assumes his audience is actually making a good-faith
> effort to actually understand what he is saying and will interpret his
> comments accordingly rather than seizing on some misguided
> interpretation which clearly does not match the actual math.
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error

<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32506&group=comp.theory#32506

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx11.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 19:00:36 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5137
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 23:00 UTC

On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 5:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-14 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 4:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/22 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>>> G is not provable in F only because G is semantically incorrect in F.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, I don't thnk you have actually read what G is.G actually is a
>>>> fairly innocuous, if complected, mathematical formula asking if
>>>> there exsit interger roots (If I am remembering it correctly).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gödel says:
>>> We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
>>> unprovability.
>>
>> That's Gödel's commentary, not the actual content of G.
>>
>>> Which is the same self-contradictory bullshit as the liar paradox.
>>
>> Even if G did assert its own unprovability, there would be nothing
>> self-contradictory about this.
>
>
> 8. I imagine someone asking my advice; he says: "I have constructed a
> proposition (I will use 'P' to designate it) in Russell's symbolism,and
> by means of certain definitions and transformations it can be so
> interpreted that it says: 'P is not provable in Russell's system'. Must
> I not say that this proposition on the one hand is true, and on the
> other hand is unprovable? For suppose it were false; then it is true
> that it is provable. And that surely cannot be! And if it is proved,
> then it is proved that it is not provable. Thus it can only be true, but
> unprovable. "
>
> Just as we ask: " 'provable' in what system?", so we must also ask:"
> 'true' in what system?" '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.-Now what does your
> "suppose it is false" mean? In the Russell sense it means 'suppose the
> opposite is proved in Russell's system'; if that is your assumption, you
> will now presumably give up the interpretation that it is unprovable.
>
> And by 'this interpretation' I understand the translation into this
> English sentence.-If you assume that the proposition is provable in
> Russell's system, that means it' is true in the Russell sense, and the
> interpretation "P is not provable" again has to be given up. If you
> assume that the proposition is true in the Russell sense, the same thing
> follows...
>
> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics
> (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England:
> The MIT Press
>
And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's paper at
this point either, so he makes the same error you do of know knowing
what he is talking about.

>
>> A sentence which asserts its own falsity is self-contradictory, one
>> that asserts its own unprovability is not.
>>
>
> When an expression of language is asserting its own unprovability it is
> also asserting that it is untrue in the same system that it is
> unprovable. This means that F is not incomplete, it is merely that G is
> untrue.

What rule is that?

The PRESUMES that True -> Provable, which has NOT been proven (so isnt'
True by its own words), and only applies in a system that accepts it as
a basis, so it can be true.

FAIL.

>
>> The big problem here is that you are clearly not Gödel's intended
>> audience. Gödel makes three crucial assumptions, none of which apply
>> to you.
>>
>> First, he assumes a certain minimal background in the field on the
>> part of his readership.
>>
>> Second, he assumes that people reading his commentary are also
>> following along with the actual math.
>>
>> And thirdly, he assumes his audience is actually making a good-faith
>> effort to actually understand what he is saying and will interpret his
>> comments accordingly rather than seizing on some misguided
>> interpretation which clearly does not match the actual math.
>>
>> André
>>
>
>

Re: Category error

<t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32508&group=comp.theory#32508

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Category error
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 17:21:02 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 23:21:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="08d0e8989edd32ba354c79093e08d1c8";
logging-data="20797"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/EI1Nn1dA7YWojD2NRZ/2I"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:z1fPxrvwRYOJnAnBK/n16AFxtQw=
In-Reply-To: <nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Sat, 14 May 2022 23:21 UTC

On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:

>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics
>> (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England:
>> The MIT Press
>>
> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's paper at
> this point either, so he makes the same error you do of know knowing
> what he is talking about.

There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his initial
reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private journal which
was never intended for publication (which explains why he never bothered
to retract this remark once the error became clear to him).

Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been pointed
out to him repeatedly.

André

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

Re: Category error

<o9KdncqVOZBkpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32511&group=comp.theory#32511

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 18:27:53 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 18:27:53 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad> <t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <o9KdncqVOZBkpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 34
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-zk9iWZ6F1LR4geeqohCGXl/Ca8uVTm7ayKc5d5Z29OjgJg2pvu1t5Dz9Oa3Lz54ymOhhsHSmrT5zNAW!jg84RGvpi9m7eA9M5OBRJyYdN21R62legj/lWvZLSUT9RIvOtuXqAQA0hMLEOz9qUcFcd9tOrmw=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2760
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 23:27 UTC

On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics
>>> (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England:
>>> The MIT Press
>>>
>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's paper at
>> this point either, so he makes the same error you do of know knowing
>> what he is talking about.
>
> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his initial
> reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private journal which
> was never intended for publication (which explains why he never bothered
> to retract this remark once the error became clear to him).
>
> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been pointed
> out to him repeatedly.
>
> André
>

Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
(Untrue(F, G) and Untrue(F, ~G)) means ~Truth_Bearer(G).

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error

<t5pe74$o0t$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32512&group=comp.theory#32512

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Category error
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 17:32:51 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <t5pe74$o0t$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad> <t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>
<o9KdncqVOZBkpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 23:32:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="08d0e8989edd32ba354c79093e08d1c8";
logging-data="24605"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX189cips07xBx/LR3H58FKVS"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QVcXMR/CuD8ZN43eKVtHCzrSA28=
In-Reply-To: <o9KdncqVOZBkpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Sat, 14 May 2022 23:32 UTC

On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics
>>>> (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and London,
>>>> England: The MIT Press
>>>>
>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's paper
>>> at this point either, so he makes the same error you do of know
>>> knowing what he is talking about.
>>
>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his initial
>> reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private journal which
>> was never intended for publication (which explains why he never
>> bothered to retract this remark once the error became clear to him).
>>
>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been pointed
>> out to him repeatedly.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).

That's an assertion, not an argument.

> (Untrue(F, G) and Untrue(F, ~G)) means ~Truth_Bearer(G).

That's an assertion, not an argument.

And the logics which Gödel is considering all include the law of the
excluded middle. There is no 'untrue' in these systems; only true and false.

André

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

Re: Category error

<Wf6dneXnkN5JoR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32514&group=comp.theory#32514

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 18:35:48 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 18:35:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Wf6dneXnkN5JoR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 113
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-riEbQl7Jyo1YCcsACYZzpqiXayeYNSrT7KBgWLmjgmZSmhj1iLM1MtX4ogoqQmY6VWFF9O7qL9tHvh+!6J2z75Wo6qfdj+gT3TQpESE1722R9I1jHLFUeLpqX1ADsXT5FFRHjPj8soJOZggNLuQ70JZiAdM=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6011
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 23:35 UTC

On 5/14/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 5:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-14 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 4:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/22 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> G is not provable in F only because G is semantically incorrect in F.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, I don't thnk you have actually read what G is.G actually is a
>>>>> fairly innocuous, if complected, mathematical formula asking if
>>>>> there exsit interger roots (If I am remembering it correctly).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gödel says:
>>>> We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
>>>> unprovability.
>>>
>>> That's Gödel's commentary, not the actual content of G.
>>>
>>>> Which is the same self-contradictory bullshit as the liar paradox.
>>>
>>> Even if G did assert its own unprovability, there would be nothing
>>> self-contradictory about this.
>>
>>
>> 8. I imagine someone asking my advice; he says: "I have constructed a
>> proposition (I will use 'P' to designate it) in Russell's
>> symbolism,and by means of certain definitions and transformations it
>> can be so interpreted that it says: 'P is not provable in Russell's
>> system'. Must I not say that this proposition on the one hand is true,
>> and on the other hand is unprovable? For suppose it were false; then
>> it is true that it is provable. And that surely cannot be! And if it
>> is proved, then it is proved that it is not provable. Thus it can only
>> be true, but unprovable. "
>>
>> Just as we ask: " 'provable' in what system?", so we must also ask:"
>> 'true' in what system?" '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.-Now what does your
>> "suppose it is false" mean? In the Russell sense it means 'suppose the
>> opposite is proved in Russell's system'; if that is your assumption,
>> you will now presumably give up the interpretation that it is unprovable.
>>
>> And by 'this interpretation' I understand the translation into this
>> English sentence.-If you assume that the proposition is provable in
>> Russell's system, that means it' is true in the Russell sense, and the
>> interpretation "P is not provable" again has to be given up. If you
>> assume that the proposition is true in the Russell sense, the same
>> thing follows...
>>
>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics
>> (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England:
>> The MIT Press
>>
> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's paper at
> this point either, so he makes the same error you do of know knowing
> what he is talking about.
>
>>
>>> A sentence which asserts its own falsity is self-contradictory, one
>>> that asserts its own unprovability is not.
>>>
>>
>> When an expression of language is asserting its own unprovability it
>> is also asserting that it is untrue in the same system that it is
>> unprovable. This means that F is not incomplete, it is merely that G
>> is untrue.
>
> What rule is that?
>
> The PRESUMES that True -> Provable, which has NOT been proven (so isnt'
> True by its own words), and only applies in a system that accepts it as
> a basis, so it can be true.
>

This is simply the way that correct reasoning works and when logic
diverges from this it becomes incorrect.

Try and find any example of analytical truth that cannot be proven to be
true.

> FAIL.
>
>>
>>> The big problem here is that you are clearly not Gödel's intended
>>> audience. Gödel makes three crucial assumptions, none of which apply
>>> to you.
>>>
>>> First, he assumes a certain minimal background in the field on the
>>> part of his readership.
>>>
>>> Second, he assumes that people reading his commentary are also
>>> following along with the actual math.
>>>
>>> And thirdly, he assumes his audience is actually making a good-faith
>>> effort to actually understand what he is saying and will interpret
>>> his comments accordingly rather than seizing on some misguided
>>> interpretation which clearly does not match the actual math.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error

<t5pekc$p7g$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32515&group=comp.theory#32515

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Category error
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 17:39:56 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <t5pekc$p7g$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad>
<Wf6dneXnkN5JoR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 23:39:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="08d0e8989edd32ba354c79093e08d1c8";
logging-data="25840"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+r9wueAPDmVVqM/CnsZ0YT"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fvtnatIe0eWCpuLDGmSfIggXuvU=
In-Reply-To: <Wf6dneXnkN5JoR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Sat, 14 May 2022 23:39 UTC

On 2022-05-14 17:35, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>> The PRESUMES that True -> Provable, which has NOT been proven (so
>> isnt' True by its own words), and only applies in a system that
>> accepts it as a basis, so it can be true.
>>
>
> This is simply the way that correct reasoning works and when logic
> diverges from this it becomes incorrect.

Where exactly can one read up on this 'correct reasoning'? Can you point
us to a source where its axioms and rules of inference are collected?

Or is this just some vague concept that exists only in your head?

André

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

Re: Category error

<YIXfK.5619$cQO2.4658@fx47.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32518&group=comp.theory#32518

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx47.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad>
<Wf6dneXnkN5JoR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <Wf6dneXnkN5JoR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <YIXfK.5619$cQO2.4658@fx47.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 20:22:16 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6313
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 15 May 2022 00:22 UTC

On 5/14/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 5:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-14 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 4:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/22 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> G is not provable in F only because G is semantically incorrect
>>>>>>> in F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, I don't thnk you have actually read what G is.G actually is
>>>>>> a fairly innocuous, if complected, mathematical formula asking if
>>>>>> there exsit interger roots (If I am remembering it correctly).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gödel says:
>>>>> We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its
>>>>> own unprovability.
>>>>
>>>> That's Gödel's commentary, not the actual content of G.
>>>>
>>>>> Which is the same self-contradictory bullshit as the liar paradox.
>>>>
>>>> Even if G did assert its own unprovability, there would be nothing
>>>> self-contradictory about this.
>>>
>>>
>>> 8. I imagine someone asking my advice; he says: "I have constructed a
>>> proposition (I will use 'P' to designate it) in Russell's
>>> symbolism,and by means of certain definitions and transformations it
>>> can be so interpreted that it says: 'P is not provable in Russell's
>>> system'. Must I not say that this proposition on the one hand is
>>> true, and on the other hand is unprovable? For suppose it were false;
>>> then it is true that it is provable. And that surely cannot be! And
>>> if it is proved, then it is proved that it is not provable. Thus it
>>> can only be true, but unprovable. "
>>>
>>> Just as we ask: " 'provable' in what system?", so we must also ask:"
>>> 'true' in what system?" '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.-Now what does
>>> your "suppose it is false" mean? In the Russell sense it means
>>> 'suppose the opposite is proved in Russell's system'; if that is your
>>> assumption, you will now presumably give up the interpretation that
>>> it is unprovable.
>>>
>>> And by 'this interpretation' I understand the translation into this
>>> English sentence.-If you assume that the proposition is provable in
>>> Russell's system, that means it' is true in the Russell sense, and
>>> the interpretation "P is not provable" again has to be given up. If
>>> you assume that the proposition is true in the Russell sense, the
>>> same thing follows...
>>>
>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics
>>> (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England:
>>> The MIT Press
>>>
>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's paper at
>> this point either, so he makes the same error you do of know knowing
>> what he is talking about.
>>
>>>
>>>> A sentence which asserts its own falsity is self-contradictory, one
>>>> that asserts its own unprovability is not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When an expression of language is asserting its own unprovability it
>>> is also asserting that it is untrue in the same system that it is
>>> unprovable. This means that F is not incomplete, it is merely that G
>>> is untrue.
>>
>> What rule is that?
>>
>> The PRESUMES that True -> Provable, which has NOT been proven (so
>> isnt' True by its own words), and only applies in a system that
>> accepts it as a basis, so it can be true.
>>
>
> This is simply the way that correct reasoning works and when logic
> diverges from this it becomes incorrect.

Yes, it proves that correct reasoning must be incorrect, because it says
the laws of logic don't apply to the fields that they apply to.
>
> Try and find any example of analytical truth that cannot be proven to be
> true.

Wrong Question, showing you are still stuck in a category error.

You keep on saying that a TRUTH that cannot be proves isn't True.

Your wording has proven your system in inconsistent, because in one set
of words you restrict yourelf to "Analytic Truths", but then you assert
your conclusion on "All Truth"

Your logic is proven inconsistent in definition (which is as close a
system gets to be logically "incorrect"),

>
>> FAIL.
>>
>>>
>>>> The big problem here is that you are clearly not Gödel's intended
>>>> audience. Gödel makes three crucial assumptions, none of which apply
>>>> to you.
>>>>
>>>> First, he assumes a certain minimal background in the field on the
>>>> part of his readership.
>>>>
>>>> Second, he assumes that people reading his commentary are also
>>>> following along with the actual math.
>>>>
>>>> And thirdly, he assumes his audience is actually making a good-faith
>>>> effort to actually understand what he is saying and will interpret
>>>> his comments accordingly rather than seizing on some misguided
>>>> interpretation which clearly does not match the actual math.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: Category error

<jKXfK.5620$cQO2.5199@fx47.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32519&group=comp.theory#32519

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx47.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad> <t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>
<o9KdncqVOZBkpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pe74$o0t$1@dont-email.me>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <t5pe74$o0t$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <jKXfK.5620$cQO2.5199@fx47.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 20:23:43 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2810
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 15 May 2022 00:23 UTC

On 5/14/22 7:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of
>>>>> Mathematics (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and
>>>>> London, England: The MIT Press
>>>>>
>>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's paper
>>>> at this point either, so he makes the same error you do of know
>>>> knowing what he is talking about.
>>>
>>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his initial
>>> reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private journal
>>> which was never intended for publication (which explains why he never
>>> bothered to retract this remark once the error became clear to him).
>>>
>>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been pointed
>>> out to him repeatedly.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
>
> That's an assertion, not an argument.

And an UNPROVEN assertion, so by its own meaning, self-contradictory.
>
>> (Untrue(F, G) and Untrue(F, ~G)) means ~Truth_Bearer(G).
>
> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>
> And the logics which Gödel is considering all include the law of the
> excluded middle. There is no 'untrue' in these systems; only true and
> false.
>
> André
>

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]

<zaKdnVaEj43X8B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32521&group=comp.theory#32521

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 22:02:34 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 22:02:34 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad> <t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>
<o9KdncqVOZBkpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pe74$o0t$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t5pe74$o0t$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <zaKdnVaEj43X8B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 73
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-KwBE6PkU6RfYfvFs0MeZ8Z4yiGIk2Lrn/4WYmQ+kX+gWhjmNcXSzgFFZx1vm/CUkCxn0LakihsQ+z9T!s3+pwTW3ZrC4sGWiPfSzRzkXxQ/IzesqIZ5Vob95ZyXHvMCv6xqKBuQlSTJbnoSFfDg4EGbzcC8=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4082
 by: olcott - Sun, 15 May 2022 03:02 UTC

On 5/14/2022 6:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of
>>>>> Mathematics (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and
>>>>> London, England: The MIT Press
>>>>>
>>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's paper
>>>> at this point either, so he makes the same error you do of know
>>>> knowing what he is talking about.
>>>
>>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his initial
>>> reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private journal
>>> which was never intended for publication (which explains why he never
>>> bothered to retract this remark once the error became clear to him).
>>>
>>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been pointed
>>> out to him repeatedly.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
>
> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>

Some of these terms are from standard analytic philosophy.

Proofs over infinite sets can be tricky.

KEY_INSIGHT:
(a) The proof is that the entire body of analytic knowledge (including
all math, logic, et cetera) is structured as semantic connections
between elements of this same body.

(b) All analytic expressions of language only obtain their meaning
through semantic connections.

*The proof of these two is that no counter-examples can be found*

STANDARD_MEANING:
(c) Analytic expressions of language are only true on the basis of their
meaning.

∴ True(x) only exists on the basis of the semantic connections that x
has or fails to have. This is another way of saying the True(x) is based
on Provable(x) as these semantic connections are verified or fail
verification.

>> (Untrue(F, G) and Untrue(F, ~G)) means ~Truth_Bearer(G).
>
> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>
> And the logics which Gödel is considering all include the law of the
> excluded middle. There is no 'untrue' in these systems; only true and
> false.
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error

<zaKdnVGEj4068B3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32522&group=comp.theory#32522

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 22:04:07 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 22:04:06 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad>
<Wf6dneXnkN5JoR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5pekc$p7g$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t5pekc$p7g$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <zaKdnVGEj4068B3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 28
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-2Gvx6MekuWHwLhVl06bqbjyHwU/A2AQy95ncpapJbWVMkp6uOqn5bdeN3yaKnU0Qbc+s86EGmG/nuQl!0yCU62kFMdKS+G24AMKCyW/2az4lxZyVFWGFSWE48TVjpHPcF6mLaYSEr91AYYXU/yAjXGk6M2Y=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2485
 by: olcott - Sun, 15 May 2022 03:04 UTC

On 5/14/2022 6:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-14 17:35, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>>> The PRESUMES that True -> Provable, which has NOT been proven (so
>>> isnt' True by its own words), and only applies in a system that
>>> accepts it as a basis, so it can be true.
>>>
>>
>> This is simply the way that correct reasoning works and when logic
>> diverges from this it becomes incorrect.
>
> Where exactly can one read up on this 'correct reasoning'? Can you point
> us to a source where its axioms and rules of inference are collected?
>
> Or is this just some vague concept that exists only in your head?
>
> André
>

Its in my head, I have begun to elborate it in my other reply to you.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]

<t5pu7e$c99$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32523&group=comp.theory#32523

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 22:06:05 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <t5pu7e$c99$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad> <t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>
<o9KdncqVOZBkpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pe74$o0t$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVaEj43X8B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 04:06:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6beb8ccd4b3ea5a6beaa315666b0d166";
logging-data="12585"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/0qYM6U+2eMrkKDyZ5GCtT"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iBsVYQsCp6fQWhhQxHGW2DhZOUE=
In-Reply-To: <zaKdnVaEj43X8B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Sun, 15 May 2022 04:06 UTC

On 2022-05-14 21:02, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 6:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of
>>>>>> Mathematics (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and
>>>>>> London, England: The MIT Press
>>>>>>
>>>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's paper
>>>>> at this point either, so he makes the same error you do of know
>>>>> knowing what he is talking about.
>>>>
>>>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his initial
>>>> reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private journal
>>>> which was never intended for publication (which explains why he
>>>> never bothered to retract this remark once the error became clear to
>>>> him).
>>>>
>>>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>>>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been
>>>> pointed out to him repeatedly.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
>>
>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>
>
>
> Some of these terms are from standard analytic philosophy.
>
> Proofs over infinite sets can be tricky.

Yet people make proofs over infinite sets all the time.

> KEY_INSIGHT:
> (a) The proof is that the entire body of analytic knowledge (including
> all math, logic, et cetera) is structured as semantic connections
> between elements of this same body.

Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument.

> (b) All analytic expressions of language only obtain their meaning
> through semantic connections.

Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument. And your
use of the term 'analytic' doesn't seem to correspond to the standard
usage. The analytic/synthetic distinction is one that normally arises
when talking about the philosophy of language, not logic.

> *The proof of these two is that no counter-examples can be found*

That is not how proofs work. You're the one making a claim. The burden
of proof lies with you.

And your specific claims are far too vaguely defined for anyone to track
down counterexamples. For example, I have absolutely no idea what you
mean by 'semantic connection'.

> STANDARD_MEANING:
> (c) Analytic expressions of language are only true on the basis of their
> meaning.

That's not the standard meaning of 'analytic'.

> ∴ True(x) only exists on the basis of the semantic connections that x
> has or fails to have. This is another way of saying the True(x) is based
> on Provable(x) as these semantic connections are verified or fail
> verification.

Again, that's just a baseless assertion, not an argument.

André

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

Re: Category error

<t5pu9v$c99$2@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32524&group=comp.theory#32524

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Category error
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 22:07:27 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <t5pu9v$c99$2@dont-email.me>
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad>
<Wf6dneXnkN5JoR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5pekc$p7g$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVGEj4068B3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 04:07:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6beb8ccd4b3ea5a6beaa315666b0d166";
logging-data="12585"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19kxjU9iv4uBFtfCsQMT/Ai"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sZX6zvwcvi2sVu3sgWq6mQtH/Zc=
In-Reply-To: <zaKdnVGEj4068B3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Sun, 15 May 2022 04:07 UTC

On 2022-05-14 21:04, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 6:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-14 17:35, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>> The PRESUMES that True -> Provable, which has NOT been proven (so
>>>> isnt' True by its own words), and only applies in a system that
>>>> accepts it as a basis, so it can be true.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is simply the way that correct reasoning works and when logic
>>> diverges from this it becomes incorrect.
>>
>> Where exactly can one read up on this 'correct reasoning'? Can you
>> point us to a source where its axioms and rules of inference are
>> collected?
>>
>> Or is this just some vague concept that exists only in your head?
>>
>> André
>>
>
> Its in my head, I have begun to elborate it in my other reply to you.

Given your dismally poor track record where even basic reasoning is
concerned, why should anyone be interested in your particular view of
what constitutes 'correct reasoning'?

André

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

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]

<R7ydnS43-Kt14B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32526&group=comp.theory#32526

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 23:13:28 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 23:13:27 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad> <t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>
<o9KdncqVOZBkpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pe74$o0t$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVaEj43X8B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pu7e$c99$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t5pu7e$c99$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <R7ydnS43-Kt14B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 77
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-iwGgfi7WP5TA+b4M5ld8Q5sINABjm+ocNf67yb42N22UbI1/PSrWoPiO/7Y1RKkWuDD4u837B2kUWou!QNb75QnBSJxxnoZXQNxTyrnOpGRx+wAlfn9sxTB0MsWTrn2WnyqnrvG80bqff1ARX7O/BAadXb8=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4582
 by: olcott - Sun, 15 May 2022 04:13 UTC

On 5/14/2022 11:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-14 21:02, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 6:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of
>>>>>>> Mathematics (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and
>>>>>>> London, England: The MIT Press
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's
>>>>>> paper at this point either, so he makes the same error you do of
>>>>>> know knowing what he is talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his
>>>>> initial reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private
>>>>> journal which was never intended for publication (which explains
>>>>> why he never bothered to retract this remark once the error became
>>>>> clear to him).
>>>>>
>>>>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>>>>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been
>>>>> pointed out to him repeatedly.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
>>>
>>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Some of these terms are from standard analytic philosophy.
>>
>> Proofs over infinite sets can be tricky.
>
> Yet people make proofs over infinite sets all the time.
>
>> KEY_INSIGHT:
>> (a) The proof is that the entire body of analytic knowledge (including
>> all math, logic, et cetera) is structured as semantic connections
>> between elements of this same body.
>
> Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument.
>
>> (b) All analytic expressions of language only obtain their meaning
>> through semantic connections.
>
> Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument. And your
> use of the term 'analytic' doesn't seem to correspond to the standard
> usage. The analytic/synthetic distinction is one that normally arises
> when talking about the philosophy of language, not logic.
>
>> *The proof of these two is that no counter-examples can be found*
>
> That is not how proofs work. You're the one making a claim. The burden
> of proof lies with you.
>
> And your specific claims are far too vaguely defined for anyone to track
> down counterexamples. For example, I have absolutely no idea what you
> mean by 'semantic connection'.

I will make that one concrete.
Try to provide a sentence that is true that is not connected to anything
else that shows that it is true.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error

<R7ydnSk3-Ku-4x3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32527&group=comp.theory#32527

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 23:14:27 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 23:14:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad>
<Wf6dneXnkN5JoR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5pekc$p7g$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVGEj4068B3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t5pu9v$c99$2@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t5pu9v$c99$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <R7ydnSk3-Ku-4x3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 40
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-xAUpGpGBaCPO5PoZKgY24/aS+XsIuFIr/7vI7GqayeFYUhT29PSjN5gc1ozEUnyjvyEg/67U+W+6Aml!sgsOQAjznZwafqK0hTXfd3vpuKWYqbWPMe+4g0+JNeZCWqH5ZnNZyrldqI+G9dVPS2W5HtwDssw=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2975
 by: olcott - Sun, 15 May 2022 04:14 UTC

On 5/14/2022 11:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-14 21:04, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 6:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-14 17:35, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The PRESUMES that True -> Provable, which has NOT been proven (so
>>>>> isnt' True by its own words), and only applies in a system that
>>>>> accepts it as a basis, so it can be true.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is simply the way that correct reasoning works and when logic
>>>> diverges from this it becomes incorrect.
>>>
>>> Where exactly can one read up on this 'correct reasoning'? Can you
>>> point us to a source where its axioms and rules of inference are
>>> collected?
>>>
>>> Or is this just some vague concept that exists only in your head?
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> Its in my head, I have begun to elborate it in my other reply to you.
>
> Given your dismally poor track record where even basic reasoning is
> concerned, why should anyone be interested in your particular view of
> what constitutes 'correct reasoning'?
>
> André
>

I can define it so that it can be seen to be self-evidently correct.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Pages:123456789101112
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor