On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:07:57 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> On 12/7/2022 2:20 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 6 December 2022 at 20:58:56 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Right, "Tautology" is a lable that applies to a statement in the systems
> >> it applies to.
> > Precisely! So it can't be true in ALL interpretations/systems/models.
> >
> > Because it's a statement made in the internal language of the system!
> >
> >>> Hence the part where you have to play amnesiac and forget that a tautology has to be true in all models.
> >> All Models, not all systems.
> > Yes, they are. There's logic. And then there are models/systems of logic.
> >
> > Classical logic is a model/system of logic.
> > Intuitionistic is a model/system of logic.
> > Modal logic is a model/system of logic.
> > Temporal logic is a model/system of logic.
> >
> The higher level logic of correct reasoning subsumes all of the
> differently logics of formal and natural logic into a single system of
> correct reasoning.
>
> (1) Some finite strings are stipulated to have the semantic property of
> Boolean true. Such as Haskell Curry elementary theorems
> https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
> or basic facts specified in natural language: cats ⊂ animals.
>
> (2) Some finite strings are derived by applying truth preserving
> operations operations to (1) and/or the result of (2).
>
> Any system of reasoning that diverges from this model diverges from
> correct reasoning.
> >> You don't seem to understand the difference.
> > I understand how synonyms work just fine.
> >
> >>> It was a misnomer all along.
> >> Seems to be a misunderstanding of your part.
> > You keep projecting your misunderstanding onto me.
> >
> >>> It's literally false in every instance of reality where Jack wasn't 11 a year ago!
> >> Nope. You don't understand the meaning of the statement then.
> > Q.E.D. Projection.
> >
> >>>> We could even likely strengthen the statement to "ONLY if Jack wa eleven
> >>>> a year ago, will he now be twelve."
> >>> Strengthen it all you want. It's a conditional - therefore not a tautology.
> >> Nope, you don't seem to understand the stateent.
> > Q.E.D. Projection.
> >
> >> Seems normal for you.
> > Q.E.D. Projection.
> --
> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
What did your parents do to you that you've spent your entire life trying to "be right" ?

On 12/7/2022 10:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:07:57 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/7/2022 2:20 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 6 December 2022 at 20:58:56 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Right, "Tautology" is a lable that applies to a statement in the systems
>>>> it applies to.
>>> Precisely! So it can't be true in ALL interpretations/systems/models.
>>>
>>> Because it's a statement made in the internal language of the system!
>>>
>>>>> Hence the part where you have to play amnesiac and forget that a tautology has to be true in all models.
>>>> All Models, not all systems.
>>> Yes, they are. There's logic. And then there are models/systems of logic.
>>>
>>> Classical logic is a model/system of logic.
>>> Intuitionistic is a model/system of logic.
>>> Modal logic is a model/system of logic.
>>> Temporal logic is a model/system of logic.
>>>
>> The higher level logic of correct reasoning subsumes all of the
>> differently logics of formal and natural logic into a single system of
>> correct reasoning.
>>
>> (1) Some finite strings are stipulated to have the semantic property of
>> Boolean true. Such as Haskell Curry elementary theorems
>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
>> or basic facts specified in natural language: cats ⊂ animals.
>>
>> (2) Some finite strings are derived by applying truth preserving
>> operations operations to (1) and/or the result of (2).
>>
>> Any system of reasoning that diverges from this model diverges from
>> correct reasoning.
>>>> You don't seem to understand the difference.
>>> I understand how synonyms work just fine.
>>>
>>>>> It was a misnomer all along.
>>>> Seems to be a misunderstanding of your part.
>>> You keep projecting your misunderstanding onto me.
>>>
>>>>> It's literally false in every instance of reality where Jack wasn't 11 a year ago!
>>>> Nope. You don't understand the meaning of the statement then.
>>> Q.E.D. Projection.
>>>
>>>>>> We could even likely strengthen the statement to "ONLY if Jack wa eleven
>>>>>> a year ago, will he now be twelve."
>>>>> Strengthen it all you want. It's a conditional - therefore not a tautology.
>>>> Nope, you don't seem to understand the stateent.
>>> Q.E.D. Projection.
>>>
>>>> Seems normal for you.
>>> Q.E.D. Projection.
>> --
>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> What did your parents do to you that you've spent your entire life trying to "be right" ?
>

If humanity is going to survive we must overturn the Tarski
undefinabilty theorem to derive an objective criterion measure that
divides truth from lies.

https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

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

On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:30:09 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> On 12/7/2022 10:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:07:57 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >> On 12/7/2022 2:20 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 6 December 2022 at 20:58:56 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Right, "Tautology" is a lable that applies to a statement in the systems
> >>>> it applies to.
> >>> Precisely! So it can't be true in ALL interpretations/systems/models.
> >>>
> >>> Because it's a statement made in the internal language of the system!
> >>>
> >>>>> Hence the part where you have to play amnesiac and forget that a tautology has to be true in all models.
> >>>> All Models, not all systems.
> >>> Yes, they are. There's logic. And then there are models/systems of logic.
> >>>
> >>> Classical logic is a model/system of logic.
> >>> Intuitionistic is a model/system of logic.
> >>> Modal logic is a model/system of logic.
> >>> Temporal logic is a model/system of logic.
> >>>
> >> The higher level logic of correct reasoning subsumes all of the
> >> differently logics of formal and natural logic into a single system of
> >> correct reasoning.
> >>
> >> (1) Some finite strings are stipulated to have the semantic property of
> >> Boolean true. Such as Haskell Curry elementary theorems
> >> https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
> >> or basic facts specified in natural language: cats ⊂ animals.
> >>
> >> (2) Some finite strings are derived by applying truth preserving
> >> operations operations to (1) and/or the result of (2).
> >>
> >> Any system of reasoning that diverges from this model diverges from
> >> correct reasoning.
> >>>> You don't seem to understand the difference.
> >>> I understand how synonyms work just fine.
> >>>
> >>>>> It was a misnomer all along.
> >>>> Seems to be a misunderstanding of your part.
> >>> You keep projecting your misunderstanding onto me.
> >>>
> >>>>> It's literally false in every instance of reality where Jack wasn't 11 a year ago!
> >>>> Nope. You don't understand the meaning of the statement then.
> >>> Q.E.D. Projection.
> >>>
> >>>>>> We could even likely strengthen the statement to "ONLY if Jack wa eleven
> >>>>>> a year ago, will he now be twelve."
> >>>>> Strengthen it all you want. It's a conditional - therefore not a tautology.
> >>>> Nope, you don't seem to understand the stateent.
> >>> Q.E.D. Projection.
> >>>
> >>>> Seems normal for you.
> >>> Q.E.D. Projection.
> >> --
> >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > What did your parents do to you that you've spent your entire life trying to "be right" ?
> >
> If humanity is going to survive we must overturn the Tarski
> undefinabilty theorem to derive an objective criterion measure that
> divides truth from lies.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

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

On 12/6/2022 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/6/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/6/2022 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/6/22 9:27 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/6/2022 5:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-12-05 15:19:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/5/2022 8:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-12-04 15:20:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2022 3:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-12-03 17:34:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of
>>>>>>>>>> D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence
>>>>>>>>>> of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Once the above is verified to be a tautology then it can be
>>>>>>>>>> accepted as an axiom for Simulating halt deciders.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once that is verified to be a tautology then it can (and
>>>>>>>>> should) be removed
>>>>>>>>> from the set of axioms for Simulating halt deciders (and other
>>>>>>>>> axiom sets).
>>>>>>>>> It is regarded as a bad style to use redundant axioms, and
>>>>>>>>> tautologies are
>>>>>>>>> theorems of logic, thus redundant as axioms of a theory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All axioms are tautologies. The only way to correctly determine
>>>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>>> brand new axiom has been discovered is to verify that it is a
>>>>>>>> tautology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not necessarily, as Richard Damon already pointed out. Of course,
>>>>>>> if you
>>>>>>> wish, you can call the rest "postulates" instead of axioms. What
>>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>> is the difference between an axiom and a postulate is a matter of
>>>>>>> opinion,
>>>>>>> but the most common opinion is that there is no difference, or at
>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>> no important difference, and the words "axiom" and "postulate" are
>>>>>>> synonymes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With axioms and tautologies both are necessarily true thus
>>>>>> impossibly false. We can know that a herd of cows is not a pile of
>>>>>> bricks on the basis of the meaning of the words. These meanings
>>>>>> are expressed as stipulated relations between finite strings.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are several kinds of statements that need not be proven but
>>>>> can be
>>>>> used in a proof anyway. Logically they are all axioms. You may
>>>>> choose to
>>>>> call them by different words depending on how you justify them but
>>>>> that
>>>>> is not necessary and makes no difference for logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An axiom is typically an expression of language that is simply assumed
>>>> to be true as the basis for a proof. When  creating a brand new
>>>> axiomatic system that overturns the results of other systems simply
>>>> assuming that an axiom of this system is true is not enough.
>>>
>>> So if that is what yo are attempting, you need to admit that you
>>> aren't working in the original system.
>>>
>>> You prove yourself to be a liar.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> When this brand new axiom is be proven true entirely on the basis of
>>>> its
>>>> meaning thenn (then and only then) can it be accepted to overturn prior
>>>> results. The above *axiom of simulating halt deciders* is proven to
>>>> be true on the basis of its meaning.
>>>
>>> Statements that can be proven true entierly on the basis of its
>>> meaning do not NEED To be taken as axioms,
>>>
>>
>> If they are to be used as the basis of a proof that overturns
>> conventional wisdom then they are being used as axioms.
>
> Then you aren't working in the original field, as fields are defined by
> the axiom that they are built on.
>
>>
>> Mentioning that it is true on the basis of its meaning causes people
>> that are interested in truth to verify that it is true on this basis,
>> otherwise they would not bother and thus be unaware of its truth.
>>
>
> No, your claim that it it is from the meaning of the words is just an
> attempt to cover the fact that you can't actually PROVE them from the
> actual meaning of the words.
>
> As I pointed out, you are using two different, and incompatible,
> meanings of correct simulation to bridge fr0m what H does and what a UTM
> shows.
>
My criterion is objectively correct yours is anchored entirely in
ignorance. As long as the line-by-line execution trace of the x86 code /
TM description exactly matches the line-by-line x86 / TM description
source code for N steps of simulation then these N steps of simulation
are necessarily correct.

Mathematical induction proves the behavior of what the additional steps
would be at the point where N steps have been completed. In the case of
H(D,D) and the Peter Linz embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ the next steps would simply
repeat the simulation continuously until aborted.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott

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

On 12/7/22 12:20 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 December 2022 at 20:58:56 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Right, "Tautology" is a lable that applies to a statement in the systems
>> it applies to.
> Precisely! So it can't be true in ALL interpretations/systems/models.
>
> Because it's a statement made in the internal language of the system!

But the definition didn't SAY all "Systems", so requiring it to is an error.

>
>>> Hence the part where you have to play amnesiac and forget that a tautology has to be true in all models.
>> All Models, not all systems.
> Yes, they are. There's logic. And then there are models/systems of logic.
>
> Classical logic is a model/system of logic.
> Intuitionistic is a model/system of logic.
> Modal logic is a model/system of logic.
> Temporal logic is a model/system of logic.
>
>> You don't seem to understand the difference.
> I understand how synonyms work just fine.

But in the system of the definition, they aren't.

>
>>> It was a misnomer all along.
>> Seems to be a misunderstanding of your part.
> You keep projecting your misunderstanding onto me.

No, you keep projecting your misunderstandings onto everyone else.

Yoour problem is you have adopted a system that can't handle certain
concepts, so you assume that no systems can.

>
>>> It's literally false in every instance of reality where Jack wasn't 11 a year ago!
>> Nope. You don't understand the meaning of the statement then.
> Q.E.D. Projection.

Yep, your projecting. I have explained the difference, you just reject
it because you don't understand.

>
>>>> We could even likely strengthen the statement to "ONLY if Jack wa eleven
>>>> a year ago, will he now be twelve."
>>> Strengthen it all you want. It's a conditional - therefore not a tautology.
>> Nope, you don't seem to understand the stateent.
> Q.E.D. Projection.

Agaibn, YOUR projection,

IT doesn't match YOUR system of definitions, so you reject it.

Just shows the limitation of your system.
>
>> Seems normal for you.
> Q.E.D. Projection.

On 12/7/22 8:41 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/6/2022 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/6/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/6/2022 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/6/22 9:27 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/6/2022 5:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-12-05 15:19:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/5/2022 8:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-12-04 15:20:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2022 3:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-12-03 17:34:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then H can abort its simulation
>>>>>>>>>>> of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Once the above is verified to be a tautology then it can be
>>>>>>>>>>> accepted as an axiom for Simulating halt deciders.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Once that is verified to be a tautology then it can (and
>>>>>>>>>> should) be removed
>>>>>>>>>> from the set of axioms for Simulating halt deciders (and other
>>>>>>>>>> axiom sets).
>>>>>>>>>> It is regarded as a bad style to use redundant axioms, and
>>>>>>>>>> tautologies are
>>>>>>>>>> theorems of logic, thus redundant as axioms of a theory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All axioms are tautologies. The only way to correctly determine
>>>>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>>>> brand new axiom has been discovered is to verify that it is a
>>>>>>>>> tautology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not necessarily, as Richard Damon already pointed out. Of
>>>>>>>> course, if you
>>>>>>>> wish, you can call the rest "postulates" instead of axioms. What
>>>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>>> is the difference between an axiom and a postulate is a matter
>>>>>>>> of opinion,
>>>>>>>> but the most common opinion is that there is no difference, or
>>>>>>>> at least
>>>>>>>> no important difference, and the words "axiom" and "postulate" are
>>>>>>>> synonymes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With axioms and tautologies both are necessarily true thus
>>>>>>> impossibly false. We can know that a herd of cows is not a pile
>>>>>>> of bricks on the basis of the meaning of the words. These
>>>>>>> meanings are expressed as stipulated relations between finite
>>>>>>> strings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are several kinds of statements that need not be proven but
>>>>>> can be
>>>>>> used in a proof anyway. Logically they are all axioms. You may
>>>>>> choose to
>>>>>> call them by different words depending on how you justify them but
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> is not necessary and makes no difference for logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> An axiom is typically an expression of language that is simply assumed
>>>>> to be true as the basis for a proof. When  creating a brand new
>>>>> axiomatic system that overturns the results of other systems simply
>>>>> assuming that an axiom of this system is true is not enough.
>>>>
>>>> So if that is what yo are attempting, you need to admit that you
>>>> aren't working in the original system.
>>>>
>>>> You prove yourself to be a liar.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When this brand new axiom is be proven true entirely on the basis
>>>>> of its
>>>>> meaning thenn (then and only then) can it be accepted to overturn
>>>>> prior
>>>>> results. The above *axiom of simulating halt deciders* is proven to
>>>>> be true on the basis of its meaning.
>>>>
>>>> Statements that can be proven true entierly on the basis of its
>>>> meaning do not NEED To be taken as axioms,
>>>>
>>>
>>> If they are to be used as the basis of a proof that overturns
>>> conventional wisdom then they are being used as axioms.
>>
>> Then you aren't working in the original field, as fields are defined
>> by the axiom that they are built on.
>>
>>>
>>> Mentioning that it is true on the basis of its meaning causes people
>>> that are interested in truth to verify that it is true on this basis,
>>> otherwise they would not bother and thus be unaware of its truth.
>>>
>>
>> No, your claim that it it is from the meaning of the words is just an
>> attempt to cover the fact that you can't actually PROVE them from the
>> actual meaning of the words.
>>
>> As I pointed out, you are using two different, and incompatible,
>> meanings of correct simulation to bridge fr0m what H does and what a
>> UTM shows.
>>
> My criterion is objectively correct yours is anchored entirely in
> ignorance. As long as the line-by-line execution trace of the x86 code /
> TM description exactly matches the line-by-line x86 / TM description
> source code for N steps of simulation then these N steps of simulation
> are necessarily correct.

I never said that your simulation was not a correct PARTIAL simulation.

You seem to be incapable of understanding the words though.

>
> Mathematical induction proves the behavior of what the additional steps
> would be at the point where N steps have been completed. In the case of
> H(D,D) and the Peter Linz embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ the next steps would simply
> repeat the simulation continuously until aborted.
>

Nope, because if you corrrect simulate into the call of H(D,D) inside
the function D, you will see it simulated its copy of D till it reaches
the call to H(D,D) inside it, and then abort and return 0.

Thus, you do NOT have the infinite repeat that you claim.

Your problem is that when you do the step, you INCORRECTLY change the H
that D calls, which is NOT allowed.

The input D to H must remain calling the H that is exactly the H that
acts like the original. This H can not simulate past the point of the
call to H(D,D), becuase, by its definition in code it stops there.

Your failure to understand this fact just shows you are ignorant of the
rules because you have made yourself stupid.

Your repeating the statement after it has been pointed out makes you
just apparently a pathological liar, as you can't seem to keep yourself
from saying these lies.

You show that you do NOT understand the basics of logic and that you are
just trying to feed your own ego in making yourself think you have
discovered something great. You haven't, you have just demonstrated how
stupid you are.

Genius may hit the target that others couldn't see (until it was hit),
Stupid tries to hit targets that aren't actually there.

On 12/7/2022 9:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:30:09 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/7/2022 10:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
<SIP> <SNIP>
>>> What did your parents do to you that you've spent your entire life trying to "be right" ?
>>>
>> If humanity is going to survive we must overturn the Tarski
>> undefinabilty theorem to derive an objective criterion measure that
>> divides truth from lies.
> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex
I'm trying to understand whether you think the same aura emanates from
you as PO from. For example, the above indicates that you are trying to
save him. As one that has watched these threads off an on for a while, I
want to warn you that you will not succeed. He's a troll within a nut
case within a troll. If he believes himself a savior, that is merely
another misconception.
Moving on, tell us about you; you seem to have a good dose of PO in you.
On the surface it seems to be a case "of takes one to know one" but we
all seek a deeper understanding of the contestants. N.B. I'm not
questioning the veracity of your comments about PO - it's almost
impossible to attribute too many negatives to him. However, in your
capacity as his savior you must demonstrate success, compassion, and a
deep understanding of his errors and omissions. I'm not sure you've met
that burden yet.
--
Jeff Barnett

On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 19:30:36 UTC+2, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 12/7/2022 9:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:30:09 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >> On 12/7/2022 10:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> <SIP> <SNIP>
> >>> What did your parents do to you that you've spent your entire life trying to "be right" ?
> >>>
> >> If humanity is going to survive we must overturn the Tarski
> >> undefinabilty theorem to derive an objective criterion measure that
> >> divides truth from lies.
> > 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex
> I'm trying to understand whether you think the same aura emanates from
> you as PO from. For example, the above indicates that you are trying to
> save him. As one that has watched these threads off an on for a while, I
> want to warn you that you will not succeed. He's a troll within a nut
> case within a troll. If he believes himself a savior, that is merely
> another misconception.
>
> Moving on, tell us about you; you seem to have a good dose of PO in you.
> On the surface it seems to be a case "of takes one to know one" but we
> all seek a deeper understanding of the contestants. N.B. I'm not
> questioning the veracity of your comments about PO - it's almost
> impossible to attribute too many negatives to him. However, in your
> capacity as his savior you must demonstrate success, compassion, and a
> deep understanding of his errors and omissions. I'm not sure you've met
> that burden yet.

That's because I am not laughing to his benefit. I am laughing at his expense.

There's no such thing as "depth" of understanding. The abyss of formalism is all syntax - semantics is the land of illusions.

On 12/7/2022 11:28 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 12/7/2022 9:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:30:09 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/7/2022 10:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>
> <SIP> <SNIP>
>
>>>> What did your parents do to you that you've spent your entire life
>>>> trying to "be right" ?
>>>>
>>> If humanity is going to survive we must overturn the Tarski
>>> undefinabilty theorem to derive an objective criterion measure that
>>> divides truth from lies.
>> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex
>
> I'm trying to understand whether you think the same aura emanates from
> you as PO from. For example, the above indicates that you are trying to
> save him. As one that has watched these threads off an on for a while, I
> want to warn you that you will not succeed. He's a troll within a nut
> case within a troll. If he believes himself a savior, that is merely
> another misconception.
>
> Moving on, tell us about you; you seem to have a good dose of PO in you.
> On the surface it seems to be a case "of takes one to know one" but we
> all seek a deeper understanding of the contestants. N.B. I'm not
> questioning the veracity of your comments about PO - it's almost
> impossible to attribute too many negatives to him. However, in your
> capacity as his savior you must demonstrate success, compassion, and a
> deep understanding of his errors and omissions. I'm not sure you've met
> that burden yet.

Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts

It is an objectively verifiable fact that climate change disinformation
is effectively preventing sufficient climate change mitigation. That
heat waves are beginning to cause mass deaths is also objectively proven:

How one heatwave killed 'a third' of a bat species in Australia
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46859000

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

On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 20:05:31 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> On 12/7/2022 11:28 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> > On 12/7/2022 9:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:30:09 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >>> On 12/7/2022 10:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >
> > <SIP> <SNIP>
> >
> >>>> What did your parents do to you that you've spent your entire life
> >>>> trying to "be right" ?
> >>>>
> >>> If humanity is going to survive we must overturn the Tarski
> >>> undefinabilty theorem to derive an objective criterion measure that
> >>> divides truth from lies.
> >> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex
> >
> > I'm trying to understand whether you think the same aura emanates from
> > you as PO from. For example, the above indicates that you are trying to
> > save him. As one that has watched these threads off an on for a while, I
> > want to warn you that you will not succeed. He's a troll within a nut
> > case within a troll. If he believes himself a savior, that is merely
> > another misconception.
> >
> > Moving on, tell us about you; you seem to have a good dose of PO in you..
> > On the surface it seems to be a case "of takes one to know one" but we
> > all seek a deeper understanding of the contestants. N.B. I'm not
> > questioning the veracity of your comments about PO - it's almost
> > impossible to attribute too many negatives to him. However, in your
> > capacity as his savior you must demonstrate success, compassion, and a
> > deep understanding of his errors and omissions. I'm not sure you've met
> > that burden yet.
> Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>
> It is an objectively verifiable fact that climate change disinformation
> is effectively preventing sufficient climate change mitigation. That
> heat waves are beginning to cause mass deaths is also objectively proven:
>
> How one heatwave killed 'a third' of a bat species in Australia
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46859000

All of that is completely unrelated to anything you are doing.

On 12/7/2022 12:22 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 20:05:31 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/7/2022 11:28 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 12/7/2022 9:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:30:09 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/7/2022 10:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>
>>> <SIP> <SNIP>
>>>
>>>>>> What did your parents do to you that you've spent your entire life
>>>>>> trying to "be right" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>> If humanity is going to survive we must overturn the Tarski
>>>>> undefinabilty theorem to derive an objective criterion measure that
>>>>> divides truth from lies.
>>>> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex
>>>
>>> I'm trying to understand whether you think the same aura emanates from
>>> you as PO from. For example, the above indicates that you are trying to
>>> save him. As one that has watched these threads off an on for a while, I
>>> want to warn you that you will not succeed. He's a troll within a nut
>>> case within a troll. If he believes himself a savior, that is merely
>>> another misconception.
>>>
>>> Moving on, tell us about you; you seem to have a good dose of PO in you.
>>> On the surface it seems to be a case "of takes one to know one" but we
>>> all seek a deeper understanding of the contestants. N.B. I'm not
>>> questioning the veracity of your comments about PO - it's almost
>>> impossible to attribute too many negatives to him. However, in your
>>> capacity as his savior you must demonstrate success, compassion, and a
>>> deep understanding of his errors and omissions. I'm not sure you've met
>>> that burden yet.
>> Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>>
>> It is an objectively verifiable fact that climate change disinformation
>> is effectively preventing sufficient climate change mitigation. That
>> heat waves are beginning to cause mass deaths is also objectively proven:
>>
>> How one heatwave killed 'a third' of a bat species in Australia
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46859000
>
> All of that is completely unrelated to anything you are doing.

It would seem that way to anyone that only glances at my words before
forming a rebuttal.

The Tarski Undefinability theorem that "proves" the notion of truth
cannot be formalized is directly related to its isomorphism of the 1931
Gödel incompleteness theorem.

When the notion of truth itself cannot be precisely nailed down then
lies such as climate change disinformation can far too easily slip
through undetected.

The Tarski Undefinability theorem has as its basis the inability to
prove that the Liar Paradox is true.

It would then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy of the
liar in the metalanguage, by forming in the language itself
a sentence x such that the sentence of the metalanguage which
is correlated with x asserts that x is not a true sentence.
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf

When we have a mathematical specification of the notion of truth thenn
(then and only then) can we have mathematical proofs that discern lies
from truth.

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

On 12/7/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/7/2022 12:22 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 20:05:31 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/7/2022 11:28 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>> On 12/7/2022 9:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:30:09 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 10:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <SIP> <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>>>>> What did your parents do to you that you've spent your entire life
>>>>>>> trying to "be right" ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If humanity is going to survive we must overturn the Tarski
>>>>>> undefinabilty theorem to derive an objective criterion measure that
>>>>>> divides truth from lies.
>>>>> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex
>>>>
>>>> I'm trying to understand whether you think the same aura emanates from
>>>> you as PO from. For example, the above indicates that you are trying to
>>>> save him. As one that has watched these threads off an on for a
>>>> while, I
>>>> want to warn you that you will not succeed. He's a troll within a nut
>>>> case within a troll. If he believes himself a savior, that is merely
>>>> another misconception.
>>>>
>>>> Moving on, tell us about you; you seem to have a good dose of PO in
>>>> you.
>>>> On the surface it seems to be a case "of takes one to know one" but we
>>>> all seek a deeper understanding of the contestants. N.B. I'm not
>>>> questioning the veracity of your comments about PO - it's almost
>>>> impossible to attribute too many negatives to him. However, in your
>>>> capacity as his savior you must demonstrate success, compassion, and a
>>>> deep understanding of his errors and omissions. I'm not sure you've met
>>>> that burden yet.
>>> Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable
>>> facts
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>>>
>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact that climate change disinformation
>>> is effectively preventing sufficient climate change mitigation. That
>>> heat waves are beginning to cause mass deaths is also objectively
>>> proven:
>>>
>>> How one heatwave killed 'a third' of a bat species in Australia
>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46859000
>>
>> All of that is completely unrelated to anything you are doing.
>
>
> It would seem that way to anyone that only glances at my words before
> forming a rebuttal.
>
> The Tarski Undefinability theorem that "proves" the notion of truth
> cannot be formalized is directly related to its isomorphism of the 1931
> Gödel incompleteness theorem.
>

You don't understand what Tarski was saying. He is talking about
formalization WITHIN the system can not define what is true in that system.

This is really just a expansion on the incompleteness theorem, that
there exists within any sufficiently prowerful system of logic,
statements which can not be proved to be true (or false).

> When the notion of truth itself cannot be precisely nailed down then
> lies such as climate change disinformation can far too easily slip
> through undetected.

Which isn't what it says.

>
> The Tarski Undefinability theorem has as its basis the inability to
> prove that the Liar Paradox is true.
>
>    It would then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy of the
>    liar in the metalanguage, by forming in the language itself
>    a sentence x such that the sentence of the metalanguage which
>    is correlated with x asserts that x is not a true sentence.
>    https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
>
> When we have a mathematical specification of the notion of truth thenn
> (then and only then) can we have mathematical proofs that discern lies
> from truth.
>

Which means we can not form a MATHEMATICAL test that universally
discerns Truth from Lies.

We can not define WITHIN THE SYSTEM, a definition of Truth.

We are not limited to being "within the system", so from outside the
system, we have the possiblity to use extra-system logic to determine
the truth.

It does seem to say that within the system that we do exist in, there
will be SOME statement we can not show to be true or false, but that
doesn't mean that most statements can have a truth value applied to them.

Thus, the truth of all your statements doesn't get negated by Tarski.
Tarski just says we can't create a "formula" that universally shows if a
statement is true or not.

On 12/7/2022 1:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/7/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/7/2022 12:22 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 20:05:31 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/7/2022 11:28 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>> On 12/7/2022 9:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:30:09 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 10:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <SIP> <SNIP>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What did your parents do to you that you've spent your entire life
>>>>>>>> trying to "be right" ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If humanity is going to survive we must overturn the Tarski
>>>>>>> undefinabilty theorem to derive an objective criterion measure that
>>>>>>> divides truth from lies.
>>>>>> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm trying to understand whether you think the same aura emanates from
>>>>> you as PO from. For example, the above indicates that you are
>>>>> trying to
>>>>> save him. As one that has watched these threads off an on for a
>>>>> while, I
>>>>> want to warn you that you will not succeed. He's a troll within a nut
>>>>> case within a troll. If he believes himself a savior, that is merely
>>>>> another misconception.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moving on, tell us about you; you seem to have a good dose of PO in
>>>>> you.
>>>>> On the surface it seems to be a case "of takes one to know one" but we
>>>>> all seek a deeper understanding of the contestants. N.B. I'm not
>>>>> questioning the veracity of your comments about PO - it's almost
>>>>> impossible to attribute too many negatives to him. However, in your
>>>>> capacity as his savior you must demonstrate success, compassion, and a
>>>>> deep understanding of his errors and omissions. I'm not sure you've
>>>>> met
>>>>> that burden yet.
>>>> Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable
>>>> facts
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>>>>
>>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact that climate change disinformation
>>>> is effectively preventing sufficient climate change mitigation. That
>>>> heat waves are beginning to cause mass deaths is also objectively
>>>> proven:
>>>>
>>>> How one heatwave killed 'a third' of a bat species in Australia
>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46859000
>>>
>>> All of that is completely unrelated to anything you are doing.
>>
>>
>> It would seem that way to anyone that only glances at my words before
>> forming a rebuttal.
>>
>> The Tarski Undefinability theorem that "proves" the notion of truth
>> cannot be formalized is directly related to its isomorphism of the
>> 1931 Gödel incompleteness theorem.
>>
>
> You don't understand what Tarski was saying. He is talking about
> formalization WITHIN the system can not define what is true in that system.
>
> This is really just a expansion on the incompleteness theorem, that
> there exists within any sufficiently prowerful system of logic,
> statements which can not be proved to be true (or false).
The conventional definition of incompleteness:
Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))

The fundamental problem is that the conventional
definition of incompleteness is not actually proof
that T is Incomplete, it is merely proof that φ
in T is not a truth bearer.

Copyright PL Olcott 2018

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott

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

On 12/7/22 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/7/2022 1:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/7/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/7/2022 12:22 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 20:05:31 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/7/2022 11:28 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 9:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:30:09 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 10:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <SIP> <SNIP>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What did your parents do to you that you've spent your entire life
>>>>>>>>> trying to "be right" ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If humanity is going to survive we must overturn the Tarski
>>>>>>>> undefinabilty theorem to derive an objective criterion measure that
>>>>>>>> divides truth from lies.
>>>>>>> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm trying to understand whether you think the same aura emanates
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> you as PO from. For example, the above indicates that you are
>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>> save him. As one that has watched these threads off an on for a
>>>>>> while, I
>>>>>> want to warn you that you will not succeed. He's a troll within a nut
>>>>>> case within a troll. If he believes himself a savior, that is merely
>>>>>> another misconception.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moving on, tell us about you; you seem to have a good dose of PO
>>>>>> in you.
>>>>>> On the surface it seems to be a case "of takes one to know one"
>>>>>> but we
>>>>>> all seek a deeper understanding of the contestants. N.B. I'm not
>>>>>> questioning the veracity of your comments about PO - it's almost
>>>>>> impossible to attribute too many negatives to him. However, in your
>>>>>> capacity as his savior you must demonstrate success, compassion,
>>>>>> and a
>>>>>> deep understanding of his errors and omissions. I'm not sure
>>>>>> you've met
>>>>>> that burden yet.
>>>>> Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable
>>>>> facts
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>>>>>
>>>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact that climate change
>>>>> disinformation
>>>>> is effectively preventing sufficient climate change mitigation. That
>>>>> heat waves are beginning to cause mass deaths is also objectively
>>>>> proven:
>>>>>
>>>>> How one heatwave killed 'a third' of a bat species in Australia
>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46859000
>>>>
>>>> All of that is completely unrelated to anything you are doing.
>>>
>>>
>>> It would seem that way to anyone that only glances at my words before
>>> forming a rebuttal.
>>>
>>> The Tarski Undefinability theorem that "proves" the notion of truth
>>> cannot be formalized is directly related to its isomorphism of the
>>> 1931 Gödel incompleteness theorem.
>>>
>>
>> You don't understand what Tarski was saying. He is talking about
>> formalization WITHIN the system can not define what is true in that
>> system.
>>
>> This is really just a expansion on the incompleteness theorem, that
>> there exists within any sufficiently prowerful system of logic,
>> statements which can not be proved to be true (or false).
> The conventional definition of incompleteness:
> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))
>
> The fundamental problem is that the conventional
> definition of incompleteness is not actually proof
> that T is Incomplete, it is merely proof that φ
> in T is not a truth bearer.
>
> Copyright PL Olcott 2018
>
>

Except the φ from the Godel Proof IS a Truth bearer as all statements of
the form 'X is Provable' or 'X is not Provable' are by necessity truth
bearers, since a given statement will either be Provable or it will not.

This comes from, in part, that if X is not a Truth Bearer, then X can
NOT be proven, just as if X is false, it can not be proven either.

If you claim that Godel statement is not a Truth Bearer, then you are
saying that the provablitiy of a statement is not a Truth Bearer, Thus
there exist statement which are neither Provable or Unprovable, which is
again, the incompleteness property, so you are agreeing with Godel by
trying to disagree with him.

In other words, you don't understand what you are talking about.

On 12/7/2022 1:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/7/22 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/7/2022 1:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/7/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/7/2022 12:22 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 20:05:31 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 11:28 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 9:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:30:09 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 10:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <SIP> <SNIP>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What did your parents do to you that you've spent your entire
>>>>>>>>>> life
>>>>>>>>>> trying to "be right" ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If humanity is going to survive we must overturn the Tarski
>>>>>>>>> undefinabilty theorem to derive an objective criterion measure
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> divides truth from lies.
>>>>>>>> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm trying to understand whether you think the same aura emanates
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> you as PO from. For example, the above indicates that you are
>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>> save him. As one that has watched these threads off an on for a
>>>>>>> while, I
>>>>>>> want to warn you that you will not succeed. He's a troll within a
>>>>>>> nut
>>>>>>> case within a troll. If he believes himself a savior, that is merely
>>>>>>> another misconception.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moving on, tell us about you; you seem to have a good dose of PO
>>>>>>> in you.
>>>>>>> On the surface it seems to be a case "of takes one to know one"
>>>>>>> but we
>>>>>>> all seek a deeper understanding of the contestants. N.B. I'm not
>>>>>>> questioning the veracity of your comments about PO - it's almost
>>>>>>> impossible to attribute too many negatives to him. However, in your
>>>>>>> capacity as his savior you must demonstrate success, compassion,
>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>> deep understanding of his errors and omissions. I'm not sure
>>>>>>> you've met
>>>>>>> that burden yet.
>>>>>> Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with
>>>>>> verifiable facts
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact that climate change
>>>>>> disinformation
>>>>>> is effectively preventing sufficient climate change mitigation. That
>>>>>> heat waves are beginning to cause mass deaths is also objectively
>>>>>> proven:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How one heatwave killed 'a third' of a bat species in Australia
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46859000
>>>>>
>>>>> All of that is completely unrelated to anything you are doing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would seem that way to anyone that only glances at my words
>>>> before forming a rebuttal.
>>>>
>>>> The Tarski Undefinability theorem that "proves" the notion of truth
>>>> cannot be formalized is directly related to its isomorphism of the
>>>> 1931 Gödel incompleteness theorem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You don't understand what Tarski was saying. He is talking about
>>> formalization WITHIN the system can not define what is true in that
>>> system.
>>>
>>> This is really just a expansion on the incompleteness theorem, that
>>> there exists within any sufficiently prowerful system of logic,
>>> statements which can not be proved to be true (or false).
>> The conventional definition of incompleteness:
>> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))
>>
>> The fundamental problem is that the conventional
>> definition of incompleteness is not actually proof
>> that T is Incomplete, it is merely proof that φ
>> in T is not a truth bearer.
>>
>> Copyright PL Olcott 2018
>>
>>
>
> Except the φ from the Godel Proof IS a Truth bearer as all statements of
> the form 'X is Provable' or 'X is not Provable' are by necessity truth
> bearers, since a given statement will either be Provable or it will not.
>

As Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out:
'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
https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

therefore: φ in T is not a truth bearer in T

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

On 12/7/22 12:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/7/2022 1:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/7/22 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/7/2022 1:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/7/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/7/2022 12:22 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 20:05:31 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 11:28 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 9:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:30:09 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 10:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <SIP> <SNIP>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What did your parents do to you that you've spent your entire
>>>>>>>>>>> life
>>>>>>>>>>> trying to "be right" ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If humanity is going to survive we must overturn the Tarski
>>>>>>>>>> undefinabilty theorem to derive an objective criterion measure
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> divides truth from lies.
>>>>>>>>> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm trying to understand whether you think the same aura
>>>>>>>> emanates from
>>>>>>>> you as PO from. For example, the above indicates that you are
>>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>>> save him. As one that has watched these threads off an on for a
>>>>>>>> while, I
>>>>>>>> want to warn you that you will not succeed. He's a troll within
>>>>>>>> a nut
>>>>>>>> case within a troll. If he believes himself a savior, that is
>>>>>>>> merely
>>>>>>>> another misconception.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Moving on, tell us about you; you seem to have a good dose of PO
>>>>>>>> in you.
>>>>>>>> On the surface it seems to be a case "of takes one to know one"
>>>>>>>> but we
>>>>>>>> all seek a deeper understanding of the contestants. N.B. I'm not
>>>>>>>> questioning the veracity of your comments about PO - it's almost
>>>>>>>> impossible to attribute too many negatives to him. However, in your
>>>>>>>> capacity as his savior you must demonstrate success, compassion,
>>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>>> deep understanding of his errors and omissions. I'm not sure
>>>>>>>> you've met
>>>>>>>> that burden yet.
>>>>>>> Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with
>>>>>>> verifiable facts
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact that climate change
>>>>>>> disinformation
>>>>>>> is effectively preventing sufficient climate change mitigation. That
>>>>>>> heat waves are beginning to cause mass deaths is also objectively
>>>>>>> proven:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How one heatwave killed 'a third' of a bat species in Australia
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46859000
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of that is completely unrelated to anything you are doing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It would seem that way to anyone that only glances at my words
>>>>> before forming a rebuttal.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Tarski Undefinability theorem that "proves" the notion of truth
>>>>> cannot be formalized is directly related to its isomorphism of the
>>>>> 1931 Gödel incompleteness theorem.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't understand what Tarski was saying. He is talking about
>>>> formalization WITHIN the system can not define what is true in that
>>>> system.
>>>>
>>>> This is really just a expansion on the incompleteness theorem, that
>>>> there exists within any sufficiently prowerful system of logic,
>>>> statements which can not be proved to be true (or false).
>>> The conventional definition of incompleteness:
>>> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))
>>>
>>> The fundamental problem is that the conventional
>>> definition of incompleteness is not actually proof
>>> that T is Incomplete, it is merely proof that φ
>>> in T is not a truth bearer.
>>>
>>> Copyright PL Olcott 2018
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Except the φ from the Godel Proof IS a Truth bearer as all statements
>> of the form 'X is Provable' or 'X is not Provable' are by necessity
>> truth bearers, since a given statement will either be Provable or it
>> will not.
>>
>
> As Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out:
>   '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
>    https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
>
> therefore: φ in T is not a truth bearer in T
>
>

But Wittgenstein is WRONG that True means PROVABLE. That fails the
definition of True used in the field.

Simple matter of fact.

FAIL.

Note, the assumptiion of Asserting True is Provable is that it means we
can not use the law of the excluded middle, which breaks a lot of the
logic the system is built on.

In fact, from other proofs we have, it shows that the logic system can
not handle systems above a certain level of complexity without going
inconsistent.

On 12/7/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/7/22 12:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/7/2022 1:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/7/22 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/7/2022 1:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/7/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 12:22 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 20:05:31 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 11:28 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 9:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:30:09 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 10:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <SIP> <SNIP>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What did your parents do to you that you've spent your
>>>>>>>>>>>> entire life
>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to "be right" ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If humanity is going to survive we must overturn the Tarski
>>>>>>>>>>> undefinabilty theorem to derive an objective criterion
>>>>>>>>>>> measure that
>>>>>>>>>>> divides truth from lies.
>>>>>>>>>> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to understand whether you think the same aura
>>>>>>>>> emanates from
>>>>>>>>> you as PO from. For example, the above indicates that you are
>>>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>>>> save him. As one that has watched these threads off an on for a
>>>>>>>>> while, I
>>>>>>>>> want to warn you that you will not succeed. He's a troll within
>>>>>>>>> a nut
>>>>>>>>> case within a troll. If he believes himself a savior, that is
>>>>>>>>> merely
>>>>>>>>> another misconception.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Moving on, tell us about you; you seem to have a good dose of
>>>>>>>>> PO in you.
>>>>>>>>> On the surface it seems to be a case "of takes one to know one"
>>>>>>>>> but we
>>>>>>>>> all seek a deeper understanding of the contestants. N.B. I'm not
>>>>>>>>> questioning the veracity of your comments about PO - it's almost
>>>>>>>>> impossible to attribute too many negatives to him. However, in
>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> capacity as his savior you must demonstrate success,
>>>>>>>>> compassion, and a
>>>>>>>>> deep understanding of his errors and omissions. I'm not sure
>>>>>>>>> you've met
>>>>>>>>> that burden yet.
>>>>>>>> Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with
>>>>>>>> verifiable facts
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact that climate change
>>>>>>>> disinformation
>>>>>>>> is effectively preventing sufficient climate change mitigation.
>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>> heat waves are beginning to cause mass deaths is also
>>>>>>>> objectively proven:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How one heatwave killed 'a third' of a bat species in Australia
>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46859000
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of that is completely unrelated to anything you are doing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would seem that way to anyone that only glances at my words
>>>>>> before forming a rebuttal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Tarski Undefinability theorem that "proves" the notion of
>>>>>> truth cannot be formalized is directly related to its isomorphism
>>>>>> of the 1931 Gödel incompleteness theorem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't understand what Tarski was saying. He is talking about
>>>>> formalization WITHIN the system can not define what is true in that
>>>>> system.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is really just a expansion on the incompleteness theorem, that
>>>>> there exists within any sufficiently prowerful system of logic,
>>>>> statements which can not be proved to be true (or false).
>>>> The conventional definition of incompleteness:
>>>> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))
>>>>
>>>> The fundamental problem is that the conventional
>>>> definition of incompleteness is not actually proof
>>>> that T is Incomplete, it is merely proof that φ
>>>> in T is not a truth bearer.
>>>>
>>>> Copyright PL Olcott 2018
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except the φ from the Godel Proof IS a Truth bearer as all statements
>>> of the form 'X is Provable' or 'X is not Provable' are by necessity
>>> truth bearers, since a given statement will either be Provable or it
>>> will not.
>>>
>>
>> As Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out:
>>    '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
>>     https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
>>
>> therefore: φ in T is not a truth bearer in T
>>
>>
>
> But Wittgenstein is WRONG that True means PROVABLE. That fails the
> definition of True used in the field.
>

It does not mean that Wittgenstein is wrong, he knows these things on
the much deeper basis of their philosophical foundation as opposed to
and contrast with memorizing a set of rules dogmatically and never
bothering to question their foundational basis.

The only correct way to determine that an analytical expression of
formal or natural language is true is:

(a) Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true such as
Haskell Curry elementary theorems:

Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary statement
which is true. https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf

encoded in Mendelson as ⊢C, thus provable on the basis that it
is a theorem.

(b) the application of truth preserving operations to (a) and/or the
results of (b).

Thus showing that φ is true in T requires φ is provable in T.

> Simple matter of fact.
>
> FAIL.
>
> Note, the assumptiion of Asserting True is Provable is that it means we
> can not use the law of the excluded middle, which breaks a lot of the
> logic the system is built on.
>
> In fact, from other proofs we have, it shows that the logic system can
> not handle systems above a certain level of complexity without going
> inconsistent.
>

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

On 12/7/22 2:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/7/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/7/22 12:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/7/2022 1:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/7/22 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/7/2022 1:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/7/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 12:22 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 20:05:31 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 11:28 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 9:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:30:09 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 10:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <SIP> <SNIP>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What did your parents do to you that you've spent your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire life
>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to "be right" ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If humanity is going to survive we must overturn the Tarski
>>>>>>>>>>>> undefinabilty theorem to derive an objective criterion
>>>>>>>>>>>> measure that
>>>>>>>>>>>> divides truth from lies.
>>>>>>>>>>> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to understand whether you think the same aura
>>>>>>>>>> emanates from
>>>>>>>>>> you as PO from. For example, the above indicates that you are
>>>>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>>>>> save him. As one that has watched these threads off an on for
>>>>>>>>>> a while, I
>>>>>>>>>> want to warn you that you will not succeed. He's a troll
>>>>>>>>>> within a nut
>>>>>>>>>> case within a troll. If he believes himself a savior, that is
>>>>>>>>>> merely
>>>>>>>>>> another misconception.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Moving on, tell us about you; you seem to have a good dose of
>>>>>>>>>> PO in you.
>>>>>>>>>> On the surface it seems to be a case "of takes one to know
>>>>>>>>>> one" but we
>>>>>>>>>> all seek a deeper understanding of the contestants. N.B. I'm not
>>>>>>>>>> questioning the veracity of your comments about PO - it's almost
>>>>>>>>>> impossible to attribute too many negatives to him. However, in
>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>> capacity as his savior you must demonstrate success,
>>>>>>>>>> compassion, and a
>>>>>>>>>> deep understanding of his errors and omissions. I'm not sure
>>>>>>>>>> you've met
>>>>>>>>>> that burden yet.
>>>>>>>>> Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with
>>>>>>>>> verifiable facts
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact that climate change
>>>>>>>>> disinformation
>>>>>>>>> is effectively preventing sufficient climate change mitigation.
>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>> heat waves are beginning to cause mass deaths is also
>>>>>>>>> objectively proven:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How one heatwave killed 'a third' of a bat species in Australia
>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46859000
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of that is completely unrelated to anything you are doing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would seem that way to anyone that only glances at my words
>>>>>>> before forming a rebuttal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Tarski Undefinability theorem that "proves" the notion of
>>>>>>> truth cannot be formalized is directly related to its isomorphism
>>>>>>> of the 1931 Gödel incompleteness theorem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't understand what Tarski was saying. He is talking about
>>>>>> formalization WITHIN the system can not define what is true in
>>>>>> that system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is really just a expansion on the incompleteness theorem,
>>>>>> that there exists within any sufficiently prowerful system of
>>>>>> logic, statements which can not be proved to be true (or false).
>>>>> The conventional definition of incompleteness:
>>>>> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))
>>>>>
>>>>> The fundamental problem is that the conventional
>>>>> definition of incompleteness is not actually proof
>>>>> that T is Incomplete, it is merely proof that φ
>>>>> in T is not a truth bearer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Copyright PL Olcott 2018
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except the φ from the Godel Proof IS a Truth bearer as all
>>>> statements of the form 'X is Provable' or 'X is not Provable' are by
>>>> necessity truth bearers, since a given statement will either be
>>>> Provable or it will not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out:
>>>    '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
>>>     https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
>>>
>>> therefore: φ in T is not a truth bearer in T
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But Wittgenstein is WRONG that True means PROVABLE. That fails the
>> definition of True used in the field.
>>
>
> It does not mean that Wittgenstein is wrong, he knows these things on
> the much deeper basis of their philosophical foundation as opposed to
> and contrast with memorizing a set of rules dogmatically and never
> bothering to question their foundational basis.

No, HE IS WRONG about the Formal Logic systme of Mathemeatics.

This has been proven.

>
> The only correct way to determine that an analytical expression of
> formal or natural language is true is:

Note, you are talking about KNOWING it is true, not what makes it true.

>
> (a) Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true such as
> Haskell Curry elementary theorems:
>
> Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary statement
> which is true. https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
>
> encoded in Mendelson as ⊢C, thus provable on the basis that it
> is a theorem.
>
> (b) the application of truth preserving operations to (a) and/or the
> results of (b).
>
> Thus showing that φ is true in T requires φ is provable in T.

It may be needed to SHOW that it is True, but not to BE True.

>
>> Simple matter of fact.
>>
>> FAIL.
>>
>> Note, the assumptiion of Asserting True is Provable is that it means
>> we can not use the law of the excluded middle, which breaks a lot of
>> the logic the system is built on.
>>
>> In fact, from other proofs we have, it shows that the logic system can
>> not handle systems above a certain level of complexity without going
>> inconsistent.
>>
>

On 12/7/2022 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/7/22 2:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/7/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/7/22 12:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/7/2022 1:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/7/22 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 1:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/7/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 12:22 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 20:05:31 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 11:28 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 9:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:30:09 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 10:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <SIP> <SNIP>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What did your parents do to you that you've spent your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire life
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to "be right" ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If humanity is going to survive we must overturn the Tarski
>>>>>>>>>>>>> undefinabilty theorem to derive an objective criterion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> divides truth from lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to understand whether you think the same aura
>>>>>>>>>>> emanates from
>>>>>>>>>>> you as PO from. For example, the above indicates that you are
>>>>>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>>>>>> save him. As one that has watched these threads off an on for
>>>>>>>>>>> a while, I
>>>>>>>>>>> want to warn you that you will not succeed. He's a troll
>>>>>>>>>>> within a nut
>>>>>>>>>>> case within a troll. If he believes himself a savior, that is
>>>>>>>>>>> merely
>>>>>>>>>>> another misconception.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Moving on, tell us about you; you seem to have a good dose of
>>>>>>>>>>> PO in you.
>>>>>>>>>>> On the surface it seems to be a case "of takes one to know
>>>>>>>>>>> one" but we
>>>>>>>>>>> all seek a deeper understanding of the contestants. N.B. I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>> questioning the veracity of your comments about PO - it's almost
>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to attribute too many negatives to him. However,
>>>>>>>>>>> in your
>>>>>>>>>>> capacity as his savior you must demonstrate success,
>>>>>>>>>>> compassion, and a
>>>>>>>>>>> deep understanding of his errors and omissions. I'm not sure
>>>>>>>>>>> you've met
>>>>>>>>>>> that burden yet.
>>>>>>>>>> Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with
>>>>>>>>>> verifiable facts
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact that climate change
>>>>>>>>>> disinformation
>>>>>>>>>> is effectively preventing sufficient climate change
>>>>>>>>>> mitigation. That
>>>>>>>>>> heat waves are beginning to cause mass deaths is also
>>>>>>>>>> objectively proven:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How one heatwave killed 'a third' of a bat species in Australia
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46859000
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All of that is completely unrelated to anything you are doing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It would seem that way to anyone that only glances at my words
>>>>>>>> before forming a rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Tarski Undefinability theorem that "proves" the notion of
>>>>>>>> truth cannot be formalized is directly related to its
>>>>>>>> isomorphism of the 1931 Gödel incompleteness theorem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't understand what Tarski was saying. He is talking about
>>>>>>> formalization WITHIN the system can not define what is true in
>>>>>>> that system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is really just a expansion on the incompleteness theorem,
>>>>>>> that there exists within any sufficiently prowerful system of
>>>>>>> logic, statements which can not be proved to be true (or false).
>>>>>> The conventional definition of incompleteness:
>>>>>> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fundamental problem is that the conventional
>>>>>> definition of incompleteness is not actually proof
>>>>>> that T is Incomplete, it is merely proof that φ
>>>>>> in T is not a truth bearer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Copyright PL Olcott 2018
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Except the φ from the Godel Proof IS a Truth bearer as all
>>>>> statements of the form 'X is Provable' or 'X is not Provable' are
>>>>> by necessity truth bearers, since a given statement will either be
>>>>> Provable or it will not.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out:
>>>>    '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
>>>>     https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
>>>>
>>>> therefore: φ in T is not a truth bearer in T
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> But Wittgenstein is WRONG that True means PROVABLE. That fails the
>>> definition of True used in the field.
>>>
>>
>> It does not mean that Wittgenstein is wrong, he knows these things on
>> the much deeper basis of their philosophical foundation as opposed to
>> and contrast with memorizing a set of rules dogmatically and never
>> bothering to question their foundational basis.
>
> No, HE IS WRONG about the Formal Logic systme of Mathemeatics.
>
> This has been proven.
>
>
>>
>> The only correct way to determine that an analytical expression of
>> formal or natural language is true is:
>
> Note, you are talking about KNOWING it is true, not what makes it true.
>
>>
>> (a) Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true such as
>> Haskell Curry elementary theorems:
>>
>> Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary statement
>> which is true. https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
>>
>> encoded in Mendelson as ⊢C, thus provable on the basis that it
>> is a theorem.
>>
>> (b) the application of truth preserving operations to (a) and/or the
>> results of (b).
>>
>> Thus showing that φ is true in T requires φ is provable in T.
>
> It may be needed to SHOW that it is True, but not to BE True.
>
>>
>>> Simple matter of fact.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>> Note, the assumptiion of Asserting True is Provable is that it means
>>> we can not use the law of the excluded middle, which breaks a lot of
>>> the logic the system is built on.
>>>
>>> In fact, from other proofs we have, it shows that the logic system
>>> can not handle systems above a certain level of complexity without
>>> going inconsistent.
>>>
>>
>
> Since you confuse Truth with Knowledge, you are condemned to not to be
> able to actually know the truth.
>
> One problem is that Mathematics is not a "purely analyitcal" field, but
> allows for "empirical" truths to exist that arise out of the
> interactions of the axioms of the field.
>
> For instance, even if we can never find a proof of the answer for the
> Collatz conjecture, what ever is the correct answer, is True.
>
> The Collatz Conjecture by its nature is a Truth Bearer, it allows for no
> middle ground, either there does exist a number that when put throuth
> the 3x+1 or /2 operation never reduces to 1, or there doesn't.
>
> The provability of the statement doesn't matter, becuase the answer just
> IS.
>

On 12/7/22 2:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/7/2022 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/7/22 2:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/7/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/7/22 12:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/7/2022 1:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/7/22 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 1:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/7/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 12:22 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 20:05:31 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 11:28 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 9:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:30:09 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 10:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <SIP> <SNIP>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What did your parents do to you that you've spent your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire life
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to "be right" ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If humanity is going to survive we must overturn the Tarski
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undefinabilty theorem to derive an objective criterion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divides truth from lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to understand whether you think the same aura
>>>>>>>>>>>> emanates from
>>>>>>>>>>>> you as PO from. For example, the above indicates that you
>>>>>>>>>>>> are trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>> save him. As one that has watched these threads off an on
>>>>>>>>>>>> for a while, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> want to warn you that you will not succeed. He's a troll
>>>>>>>>>>>> within a nut
>>>>>>>>>>>> case within a troll. If he believes himself a savior, that
>>>>>>>>>>>> is merely
>>>>>>>>>>>> another misconception.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Moving on, tell us about you; you seem to have a good dose
>>>>>>>>>>>> of PO in you.
>>>>>>>>>>>> On the surface it seems to be a case "of takes one to know
>>>>>>>>>>>> one" but we
>>>>>>>>>>>> all seek a deeper understanding of the contestants. N.B. I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> questioning the veracity of your comments about PO - it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to attribute too many negatives to him. However,
>>>>>>>>>>>> in your
>>>>>>>>>>>> capacity as his savior you must demonstrate success,
>>>>>>>>>>>> compassion, and a
>>>>>>>>>>>> deep understanding of his errors and omissions. I'm not sure
>>>>>>>>>>>> you've met
>>>>>>>>>>>> that burden yet.
>>>>>>>>>>> Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with
>>>>>>>>>>> verifiable facts
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact that climate change
>>>>>>>>>>> disinformation
>>>>>>>>>>> is effectively preventing sufficient climate change
>>>>>>>>>>> mitigation. That
>>>>>>>>>>> heat waves are beginning to cause mass deaths is also
>>>>>>>>>>> objectively proven:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How one heatwave killed 'a third' of a bat species in Australia
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46859000
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All of that is completely unrelated to anything you are doing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would seem that way to anyone that only glances at my words
>>>>>>>>> before forming a rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Tarski Undefinability theorem that "proves" the notion of
>>>>>>>>> truth cannot be formalized is directly related to its
>>>>>>>>> isomorphism of the 1931 Gödel incompleteness theorem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Tarski was saying. He is talking about
>>>>>>>> formalization WITHIN the system can not define what is true in
>>>>>>>> that system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is really just a expansion on the incompleteness theorem,
>>>>>>>> that there exists within any sufficiently prowerful system of
>>>>>>>> logic, statements which can not be proved to be true (or false).
>>>>>>> The conventional definition of incompleteness:
>>>>>>> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fundamental problem is that the conventional
>>>>>>> definition of incompleteness is not actually proof
>>>>>>> that T is Incomplete, it is merely proof that φ
>>>>>>> in T is not a truth bearer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Copyright PL Olcott 2018
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except the φ from the Godel Proof IS a Truth bearer as all
>>>>>> statements of the form 'X is Provable' or 'X is not Provable' are
>>>>>> by necessity truth bearers, since a given statement will either be
>>>>>> Provable or it will not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out:
>>>>>    '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
>>>>>     https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> therefore: φ in T is not a truth bearer in T
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But Wittgenstein is WRONG that True means PROVABLE. That fails the
>>>> definition of True used in the field.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It does not mean that Wittgenstein is wrong, he knows these things on
>>> the much deeper basis of their philosophical foundation as opposed to
>>> and contrast with memorizing a set of rules dogmatically and never
>>> bothering to question their foundational basis.
>>
>> No, HE IS WRONG about the Formal Logic systme of Mathemeatics.
>>
>> This has been proven.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The only correct way to determine that an analytical expression of
>>> formal or natural language is true is:
>>
>> Note, you are talking about KNOWING it is true, not what makes it true.
>>
>>>
>>> (a) Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true such as
>>> Haskell Curry elementary theorems:
>>>
>>> Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary statement
>>> which is true. https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
>>>
>>> encoded in Mendelson as ⊢C, thus provable on the basis that it
>>> is a theorem.
>>>
>>> (b) the application of truth preserving operations to (a) and/or the
>>> results of (b).
>>>
>>> Thus showing that φ is true in T requires φ is provable in T.
>>
>> It may be needed to SHOW that it is True, but not to BE True.
>>
>>>
>>>> Simple matter of fact.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>>>
>>>> Note, the assumptiion of Asserting True is Provable is that it means
>>>> we can not use the law of the excluded middle, which breaks a lot of
>>>> the logic the system is built on.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, from other proofs we have, it shows that the logic system
>>>> can not handle systems above a certain level of complexity without
>>>> going inconsistent.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Since you confuse Truth with Knowledge, you are condemned to not to be
>> able to actually know the truth.
>>
>> One problem is that Mathematics is not a "purely analyitcal" field,
>> but allows for "empirical" truths to exist that arise out of the
>> interactions of the axioms of the field.
>>
>> For instance, even if we can never find a proof of the answer for the
>> Collatz conjecture, what ever is the correct answer, is True.
>>
>> The Collatz Conjecture by its nature is a Truth Bearer, it allows for
>> no middle ground, either there does exist a number that when put
>> throuth the 3x+1 or /2 operation never reduces to 1, or there doesn't.
>>
>> The provability of the statement doesn't matter, becuase the answer
>> just IS.
>>
>
> That no proof is currently known to exist is not at all the same thing
> as no proof can possibly exist because the expression of language is
> self-contradictory.

On 12/7/2022 10:39 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 19:30:36 UTC+2, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 12/7/2022 9:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:30:09 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/7/2022 10:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> <SIP> <SNIP>
>>>>> What did your parents do to you that you've spent your entire life trying to "be right" ?
>>>>>
>>>> If humanity is going to survive we must overturn the Tarski
>>>> undefinabilty theorem to derive an objective criterion measure that
>>>> divides truth from lies.
>>> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex
>> I'm trying to understand whether you think the same aura emanates from
>> you as PO from. For example, the above indicates that you are trying to
>> save him. As one that has watched these threads off an on for a while, I
>> want to warn you that you will not succeed. He's a troll within a nut
>> case within a troll. If he believes himself a savior, that is merely
>> another misconception.
>>
>> Moving on, tell us about you; you seem to have a good dose of PO in you.
>> On the surface it seems to be a case "of takes one to know one" but we
>> all seek a deeper understanding of the contestants. N.B. I'm not
>> questioning the veracity of your comments about PO - it's almost
>> impossible to attribute too many negatives to him. However, in your
>> capacity as his savior you must demonstrate success, compassion, and a
>> deep understanding of his errors and omissions. I'm not sure you've met
>> that burden yet.
>
> That's because I am not laughing to his benefit. I am laughing at his expense.
Thanks for the clarification. I was hoping we hadn't lost you to a
hopeless task and I'm now satisfied.
> There's no such thing as "depth" of understanding. The abyss of formalism is all syntax - semantics is the land of illusions.
One may still take the position that a formalism and a particular
semantics associated with it is a reasonable model of our reality. Of
course the eventually flaw with that is that we will learn more as time
passes and we must abandon the current model. The other reason we might
abandon the current model is we learn more about ourselves and our
fallibility. PO is, as has been previously noted, impervious to learning
more about reality and especial about his totally inadequate self.
Carry on with the good fight.
--
Jeff Barnett

On 12/7/2022 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/7/22 2:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/7/2022 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/7/22 2:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/7/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/7/22 12:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 1:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/7/22 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 1:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 12:22 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 20:05:31 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 11:28 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 9:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:30:09 UTC+2, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 10:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <SIP> <SNIP>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What did your parents do to you that you've spent your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire life
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to "be right" ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If humanity is going to survive we must overturn the Tarski
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undefinabilty theorem to derive an objective criterion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divides truth from lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to understand whether you think the same aura
>>>>>>>>>>>>> emanates from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you as PO from. For example, the above indicates that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> save him. As one that has watched these threads off an on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a while, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to warn you that you will not succeed. He's a troll
>>>>>>>>>>>>> within a nut
>>>>>>>>>>>>> case within a troll. If he believes himself a savior, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is merely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> another misconception.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moving on, tell us about you; you seem to have a good dose
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of PO in you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the surface it seems to be a case "of takes one to know
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one" but we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all seek a deeper understanding of the contestants. N.B.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> questioning the veracity of your comments about PO - it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to attribute too many negatives to him. However,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> capacity as his savior you must demonstrate success,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> compassion, and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep understanding of his errors and omissions. I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure you've met
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that burden yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with
>>>>>>>>>>>> verifiable facts
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact that climate change
>>>>>>>>>>>> disinformation
>>>>>>>>>>>> is effectively preventing sufficient climate change
>>>>>>>>>>>> mitigation. That
>>>>>>>>>>>> heat waves are beginning to cause mass deaths is also
>>>>>>>>>>>> objectively proven:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How one heatwave killed 'a third' of a bat species in Australia
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46859000
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All of that is completely unrelated to anything you are doing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It would seem that way to anyone that only glances at my words
>>>>>>>>>> before forming a rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Tarski Undefinability theorem that "proves" the notion of
>>>>>>>>>> truth cannot be formalized is directly related to its
>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism of the 1931 Gödel incompleteness theorem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Tarski was saying. He is talking
>>>>>>>>> about formalization WITHIN the system can not define what is
>>>>>>>>> true in that system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is really just a expansion on the incompleteness theorem,
>>>>>>>>> that there exists within any sufficiently prowerful system of
>>>>>>>>> logic, statements which can not be proved to be true (or false).
>>>>>>>> The conventional definition of incompleteness:
>>>>>>>> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fundamental problem is that the conventional
>>>>>>>> definition of incompleteness is not actually proof
>>>>>>>> that T is Incomplete, it is merely proof that φ
>>>>>>>> in T is not a truth bearer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Copyright PL Olcott 2018
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except the φ from the Godel Proof IS a Truth bearer as all
>>>>>>> statements of the form 'X is Provable' or 'X is not Provable' are
>>>>>>> by necessity truth bearers, since a given statement will either
>>>>>>> be Provable or it will not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out:
>>>>>>    '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
>>>>>>     https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> therefore: φ in T is not a truth bearer in T
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But Wittgenstein is WRONG that True means PROVABLE. That fails the
>>>>> definition of True used in the field.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It does not mean that Wittgenstein is wrong, he knows these things on
>>>> the much deeper basis of their philosophical foundation as opposed to
>>>> and contrast with memorizing a set of rules dogmatically and never
>>>> bothering to question their foundational basis.
>>>
>>> No, HE IS WRONG about the Formal Logic systme of Mathemeatics.
>>>
>>> This has been proven.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only correct way to determine that an analytical expression of
>>>> formal or natural language is true is:
>>>
>>> Note, you are talking about KNOWING it is true, not what makes it true.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (a) Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true such as
>>>> Haskell Curry elementary theorems:
>>>>
>>>> Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary statement
>>>> which is true. https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
>>>>
>>>> encoded in Mendelson as ⊢C, thus provable on the basis that it
>>>> is a theorem.
>>>>
>>>> (b) the application of truth preserving operations to (a) and/or the
>>>> results of (b).
>>>>
>>>> Thus showing that φ is true in T requires φ is provable in T.
>>>
>>> It may be needed to SHOW that it is True, but not to BE True.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Simple matter of fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, the assumptiion of Asserting True is Provable is that it
>>>>> means we can not use the law of the excluded middle, which breaks a
>>>>> lot of the logic the system is built on.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, from other proofs we have, it shows that the logic system
>>>>> can not handle systems above a certain level of complexity without
>>>>> going inconsistent.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since you confuse Truth with Knowledge, you are condemned to not to
>>> be able to actually know the truth.
>>>
>>> One problem is that Mathematics is not a "purely analyitcal" field,
>>> but allows for "empirical" truths to exist that arise out of the
>>> interactions of the axioms of the field.
>>>
>>> For instance, even if we can never find a proof of the answer for the
>>> Collatz conjecture, what ever is the correct answer, is True.
>>>
>>> The Collatz Conjecture by its nature is a Truth Bearer, it allows for
>>> no middle ground, either there does exist a number that when put
>>> throuth the 3x+1 or /2 operation never reduces to 1, or there doesn't.
>>>
>>> The provability of the statement doesn't matter, becuase the answer
>>> just IS.
>>>
>>
>> That no proof is currently known to exist is not at all the same thing
>> as no proof can possibly exist because the expression of language is
>> self-contradictory.
>
> ??? What is the self-contraction? Are you denying that Reality actually
> exists?

On 12/7/2022 6:16 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 12/7/2022 10:39 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 19:30:36 UTC+2, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 12/7/2022 9:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:30:09 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/7/2022 10:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> <SIP> <SNIP>
>>>>>> What did your parents do to you that you've spent your entire life
>>>>>> trying to "be right" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>> If humanity is going to survive we must overturn the Tarski
>>>>> undefinabilty theorem to derive an objective criterion measure that
>>>>> divides truth from lies.
>>>> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex
>>> I'm trying to understand whether you think the same aura emanates from
>>> you as PO from. For example, the above indicates that you are trying to
>>> save him. As one that has watched these threads off an on for a while, I
>>> want to warn you that you will not succeed. He's a troll within a nut
>>> case within a troll. If he believes himself a savior, that is merely
>>> another misconception.
>>>
>>> Moving on, tell us about you; you seem to have a good dose of PO in you.
>>> On the surface it seems to be a case "of takes one to know one" but we
>>> all seek a deeper understanding of the contestants. N.B. I'm not
>>> questioning the veracity of your comments about PO - it's almost
>>> impossible to attribute too many negatives to him. However, in your
>>> capacity as his savior you must demonstrate success, compassion, and a
>>> deep understanding of his errors and omissions. I'm not sure you've met
>>> that burden yet.
>>
>> That's because I am not laughing to his benefit. I am laughing at his
>> expense.
>
> Thanks for the clarification. I was hoping we hadn't lost you to a
> hopeless task and I'm now satisfied.
>
>> There's no such thing as "depth" of understanding. The abyss of
>> formalism is all syntax - semantics is the land of illusions.
>
> One may still take the position that a formalism and a particular
> semantics associated with it is a reasonable model of our reality. Of
> course the eventually flaw with that is that we will learn more as time
> passes and we must abandon the current model. The other reason we might
> abandon the current model is we learn more about ourselves and our
> fallibility. PO is, as has been previously noted, impervious to learning
> more about reality and especial about his totally inadequate self.
>
> Carry on with the good fight.

Of the analytic/synthetic distinction the analytic side that I focus on
has nothing to do with models of the world.

Mathematicians and logicians make sure to never bother to look at the
philosophical foundations of these things thus misconstrue everything
that departs from their learned-by-rote dogmatic rules as an error.

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

On 12/7/22 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/7/2022 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/7/22 2:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/7/2022 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/7/22 2:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/7/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/7/22 12:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 1:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/7/22 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 1:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 12:22 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 20:05:31 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 11:28 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 9:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 18:30:09 UTC+2, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/2022 10:18 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <SIP> <SNIP>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What did your parents do to you that you've spent your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire life
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to "be right" ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If humanity is going to survive we must overturn the Tarski
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undefinabilty theorem to derive an objective criterion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divides truth from lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to understand whether you think the same aura
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emanates from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you as PO from. For example, the above indicates that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> save him. As one that has watched these threads off an on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a while, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to warn you that you will not succeed. He's a troll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within a nut
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case within a troll. If he believes himself a savior, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is merely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another misconception.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moving on, tell us about you; you seem to have a good dose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of PO in you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the surface it seems to be a case "of takes one to know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one" but we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all seek a deeper understanding of the contestants. N.B.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questioning the veracity of your comments about PO - it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to attribute too many negatives to him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capacity as his savior you must demonstrate success,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compassion, and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep understanding of his errors and omissions. I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure you've met
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that burden yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> verifiable facts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact that climate change
>>>>>>>>>>>>> disinformation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is effectively preventing sufficient climate change
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mitigation. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>> heat waves are beginning to cause mass deaths is also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> objectively proven:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How one heatwave killed 'a third' of a bat species in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Australia
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46859000
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All of that is completely unrelated to anything you are doing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It would seem that way to anyone that only glances at my
>>>>>>>>>>> words before forming a rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Tarski Undefinability theorem that "proves" the notion of
>>>>>>>>>>> truth cannot be formalized is directly related to its
>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism of the 1931 Gödel incompleteness theorem.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Tarski was saying. He is talking
>>>>>>>>>> about formalization WITHIN the system can not define what is
>>>>>>>>>> true in that system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is really just a expansion on the incompleteness theorem,
>>>>>>>>>> that there exists within any sufficiently prowerful system of
>>>>>>>>>> logic, statements which can not be proved to be true (or false).
>>>>>>>>> The conventional definition of incompleteness:
>>>>>>>>> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The fundamental problem is that the conventional
>>>>>>>>> definition of incompleteness is not actually proof
>>>>>>>>> that T is Incomplete, it is merely proof that φ
>>>>>>>>> in T is not a truth bearer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Copyright PL Olcott 2018
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except the φ from the Godel Proof IS a Truth bearer as all
>>>>>>>> statements of the form 'X is Provable' or 'X is not Provable'
>>>>>>>> are by necessity truth bearers, since a given statement will
>>>>>>>> either be Provable or it will not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out:
>>>>>>>    '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
>>>>>>>     https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> therefore: φ in T is not a truth bearer in T
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Wittgenstein is WRONG that True means PROVABLE. That fails the
>>>>>> definition of True used in the field.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not mean that Wittgenstein is wrong, he knows these things on
>>>>> the much deeper basis of their philosophical foundation as opposed to
>>>>> and contrast with memorizing a set of rules dogmatically and never
>>>>> bothering to question their foundational basis.
>>>>
>>>> No, HE IS WRONG about the Formal Logic systme of Mathemeatics.
>>>>
>>>> This has been proven.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The only correct way to determine that an analytical expression of
>>>>> formal or natural language is true is:
>>>>
>>>> Note, you are talking about KNOWING it is true, not what makes it true.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true such as
>>>>> Haskell Curry elementary theorems:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary statement
>>>>> which is true. https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> encoded in Mendelson as ⊢C, thus provable on the basis that it
>>>>> is a theorem.
>>>>>
>>>>> (b) the application of truth preserving operations to (a) and/or
>>>>> the results of (b).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus showing that φ is true in T requires φ is provable in T.
>>>>
>>>> It may be needed to SHOW that it is True, but not to BE True.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Simple matter of fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, the assumptiion of Asserting True is Provable is that it
>>>>>> means we can not use the law of the excluded middle, which breaks
>>>>>> a lot of the logic the system is built on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, from other proofs we have, it shows that the logic system
>>>>>> can not handle systems above a certain level of complexity without
>>>>>> going inconsistent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since you confuse Truth with Knowledge, you are condemned to not to
>>>> be able to actually know the truth.
>>>>
>>>> One problem is that Mathematics is not a "purely analyitcal" field,
>>>> but allows for "empirical" truths to exist that arise out of the
>>>> interactions of the axioms of the field.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, even if we can never find a proof of the answer for
>>>> the Collatz conjecture, what ever is the correct answer, is True.
>>>>
>>>> The Collatz Conjecture by its nature is a Truth Bearer, it allows
>>>> for no middle ground, either there does exist a number that when put
>>>> throuth the 3x+1 or /2 operation never reduces to 1, or there doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> The provability of the statement doesn't matter, becuase the answer
>>>> just IS.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That no proof is currently known to exist is not at all the same thing
>>> as no proof can possibly exist because the expression of language is
>>> self-contradictory.
>>
>> ??? What is the self-contraction? Are you denying that Reality
>> actually exists?
>
> This sentence is not true.
> This sentence cannot be proven.

On 12/7/22 4:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>
> Of the analytic/synthetic distinction the analytic side that I focus on
> has nothing to do with models of the world.
>
> Mathematicians and logicians make sure to never bother to look at the
> philosophical foundations of these things thus misconstrue everything
> that departs from their learned-by-rote dogmatic rules as an error.
>

No, Mathematicians have LONG understood that the classical Philosophical
foundations of "Analytic" vs "Synthetic" didn't meet the requirements of
Mathematics.

Mathematics has long allowed things to be thought of a possible "True"
even if not yet proven.

It was "hoped" that Mathematics could be shown to be provable, but being
provable took second seat to being useful.

About a Century ago, it was finally proven that in Mathematics, for any
field sufficiently advanced, not all true statements were provable.

Some Philosophers had problems with this and tried to work around the
issues, but FAILED (as have you).

Mathematcians have just accepted that their field is by necessity
"Incomplete" and not fully provable, and live with it.

You are just showing yourself to be a century behind in your knowledge,
and repeating the failed arguements of the losing side.

Think about it, why was the question of completeness brought up at all,
unless they accepted that there could be "True" statements that were not
provable.

IF you define Truth as Provable, then you can not be incomplete. The
problem is when you do that, you find that either your systems are
strictly limited in what they can handle, or they become inconsistent.

Thus, it is clear that Mathemeticians never actually thought of Truth
being only provable as a basis of their system, it was just a hope.

And, it turned out that consistancy wasn't provable within the system,
you needed to go to some larger system to prove it, and needed to hope
that larger system was still consistent or the proof didn't actually
mean anything, as an inconsistent system can prove anything.