On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/16/22 2:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/15/2022 10:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> Nope, because you are defining it in a way that you are requiring
>>> Mathematics to be based on it, but make it so that it can't be.
>>>
>>> You are showing your stupidity.
>>
>> Like I said you only know these things on the basis of learned-by-rote
>> dogmatic rules thus haven't the slightest clue whether or not these
>> rules are consistent. When I point out that these rules are inconsistent
>> you say that I am wrong because the rules do not say that they are
>> inconsistent.
>>
>
> And by that statement you are ADMITTING that you aren't using the a
> actual definitions of the field, and thus your statments don't have
> application to the field.
>

You are merely asserting learned-by-rote that is anchored in ignorance
of the mandatory philosophical underpinnings.

I am established the foundation of correct reasoning that every logical
system must conform to otherwise it is incorrect.

To say that an expression of language is true and unprovable is the same
sort of thing as saying that there is a person X that is both morbidly
obese and grossly underweight a contradiction in terms.

Every element of the body of analytic truth is only true on the basis of
its semantic connections to other elements of the body of analytic
truth. Tracing through these connections is the proof of this truth.

> PERIOD.
>
> Any claims otherwize just proves you are a STUPID LIAR that doesn't
> understand how logic works.
>

That you are utterly clueless about the philosophical foundations of
correct reasoning does not make me a liar.

> YOU ARE NOT GOD, and thus can't change the rules of the game.
>

When the rules are shown to be incorrect then these rules can be
corrected.

> If you want to claim you are, you will need to PROVE it.

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

On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/16/22 10:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/15/2022 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/15/22 8:04 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 14:59:36 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Nope, because in mathematics with infinites you don't have those
>>>>> properties.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is one of the problems with infinities.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are assuming that all the properties of the finite numbers hold,
>>>>> which they don't.
>>>>
>>>> Where's the objective arbiter on such things?
>>>
>>> That they generate contradictions, and thus make the system worthless
>>> due to the power of the principle of explosion, since there can be no
>>> actual information or knowledge in such a system.
>>
>> The principle of explosion is incorrect because semantics are ignored.
>
> So, you don't understand how logic works.
>

It is because logic does not consistently know how correct reasoning
works. This correctly eliminates the principle of explosion:

macro substitution operator :=
(A ∧ ¬A) := ε // empty string

from every formal system that transforms finite strings into Boolean
values.

As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory
statements—
"All lemons are yellow" and
"Not all lemons are yellow" —and suppose that both are true.
If that is the case, anything can be proven, e.g., the assertion that
"unicorns exist"

"All lemons are yellow" ∧ "Not all lemons are yellow" → "unicorns exist"

becomes ε → "unicorns exist"
which does not logically follow from ε, thus the non-sequitur error.

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

> You are basically DEFINING that your system is unable to derive any
> information that you haven't directly put into it.
>
> And thus, is NOT a system of logic.
>
>>
>> As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory
>> statements—"All lemons are yellow" and "Not all lemons are yellow"—and
>> suppose that both are true. If that is the case, anything can be
>> proven, e.g., the assertion that "unicorns exist"
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>>
>> axiom CATS ⊂ ANIMALS ⊂ LIVING_THINGS
>> all cats are animals
>> all animals are living things
>> ∴ all cats are living things
>>
>> ▷ <is a type of> operator borrowed from UML
>> CAT ▷ ANIMAL ▷ LIVING_THING
>>
>
>
>

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

On 12/17/22 11:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/16/22 11:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2022 7:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/22 1:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/15/2022 10:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/15/22 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/15/2022 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/15/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/14/22 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/2022 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/22 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless an expression of language is a semantic tautology is
>>>>>>>>>>>> it not an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic expression of language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, analytic expressions don't need to be a tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups
>>>>>>>>>>>> can be a true analytical expression. its Truth is dependent
>>>>>>>>>>>> on the implied meaning of some of the terms, so it is NOT a
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tautology, which must be true in ALL models of the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <sarcasm>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes maybe there is a possible world where the feline animal
>>>>>>>>>>> of a cat is also an office building. This makes perfect sense
>>>>>>>>>>> to me. When this cat sits on your lap and purrs you are
>>>>>>>>>>> crushed by its thousands of tons of weight.
>>>>>>>>>>> </sarcasm>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you show you lack of understanding. You don't seem to
>>>>>>>>>> understand the difference between a universal statement and a
>>>>>>>>>> statment of existance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This shows your ignorance. You logic if FULL of these sorts of
>>>>>>>>>> Fallacies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the context is Feline vs Canine, there are in different
>>>>>>>>>> groups.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the context is Animal vs Vegetable, there are NOT in
>>>>>>>>>> different groups.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since the model we are working in matters, it is not a Tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That a cat is an animal is a Haskell Curry elementary theorem
>>>>>>>>> of English, thus making it true by definition, thus a tautology.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you still don't understand the statement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> YOU FAIL.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Statement: "Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups" is
>>>>>>>> a statement that can be a true analytical expression but can't
>>>>>>>> be a Tautology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a
>>>>>>> formula
>>>>>>> or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, and that statement is NOT true in every possible
>>>>>> interpetation, but IS a possibly True Analytical Expression,
>>>>>> depending on the interpreation put into the words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IF the Animal Groups in question are Feline vs Canine, it is true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the Animal Groups in question are Mammilian, it is false.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus, it is NOT a Tautology, but could be true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A cat is always an animal and never an office building. That
>>>>>>> mammals are
>>>>>>> also animals still does not turn a cat into an office building.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you still don't understand what I am saying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess you are just proving you are stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> animal
>>>>>    |
>>>>> mammal
>>>>>    | |
>>>>>    | canine
>>>>>    | |
>>>>>    | dog
>>>>>    |
>>>>> feline
>>>>>    |
>>>>>   cat
>>>>>
>>>>>> A cat is a feline
>>>>>> A cat is a mammal
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A dog is a canine
>>>>>> A dog is a mammal
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a feline is not a canine, so different animal groups
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a mammal is the same group as a mammal, so not differerent animal
>>>>>> groups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whch means that the statement "Cats and Dogs are in different animal
>>>> groups" NOT a Tautology, but possibly an True Analytical Expression
>>>
>>> In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a
>>> formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
>>>
>>> If anyone "interprets" that cats are dogs they are necessarily
>>> incorrect. Cats are not dogs is true in every interpretation.
>>>
>>
>> You are still showing you aren't reading what I am writing, possibly
>> because you are too stupid.
>>
>> I NEVER said cats were dogs.
>>
>> I said that cats and dogs can belong to the same animal group (like
>> Mammal) or they could be in diferent animal groups (Feline and Canine)
>>
>> This means the statement "Cats and Dogs are in different animal
>>  >> groups" NOT a Tautology, but can be a True Analytic Statement in
>> the right model.
>
> I coined the term "semantic tautology" and it means elements of the body
> of analytic truth that are known to be true entirely on the basis of
> their semantic connections to other elements in the body of analytic
> truth. A CAT is and ANIMAL is a semantic tautology.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semantic_tautology&redirect=no
>
>
>

So, you believe in Wikipedia vandalism?

Your Edit is in violation of Wikipedias policies, in particular:

> It must conform with Wikipedia's policies, including being verifiable against a published reliable source.

The fact that you are claiming to have "invented" the term just means it
isn't applicable to any existing Theory or System, as it couldn't have
been part of them.

On 12/16/2022 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/16/22 2:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/15/2022 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/15/22 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Which means you just stipulated that you are not working on the
>>>>> ACTUAL Halting Problem,
>>>>
>>>> I am talking about the definition of the term {analytical} as in the
>>>> analytic versus empirical distinction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since the Halting Problem isn't about such a distinction, ait shows
>>> you don't know what you are talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I have not been talking about the halting problem anywhere in this
>> entire thread.
>>
>
>
> Well, it also means you are not talking about Godel, as that is
> mathematics, which is also not a "Pure Analytic" domain, as Mathematics
> isn't.

It is common knowledge that mathematics is a subset of analytical 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 12/17/22 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/16/2022 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/16/22 2:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2022 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/22 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Which means you just stipulated that you are not working on the
>>>>>> ACTUAL Halting Problem,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am talking about the definition of the term {analytical} as in
>>>>> the analytic versus empirical distinction.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since the Halting Problem isn't about such a distinction, ait shows
>>>> you don't know what you are talking about.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have not been talking about the halting problem anywhere in this
>>> entire thread.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, it also means you are not talking about Godel, as that is
>> mathematics, which is also not a "Pure Analytic" domain, as
>> Mathematics isn't.
>
> It is common knowledge that mathematics is a subset of analytical truth.
>

Nope, not ny YOUR definition at least.

On 12/17/22 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/16/22 2:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2022 10:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Nope, because you are defining it in a way that you are requiring
>>>> Mathematics to be based on it, but make it so that it can't be.
>>>>
>>>> You are showing your stupidity.
>>>
>>> Like I said you only know these things on the basis of learned-by-rote
>>> dogmatic rules thus haven't the slightest clue whether or not these
>>> rules are consistent. When I point out that these rules are inconsistent
>>> you say that I am wrong because the rules do not say that they are
>>> inconsistent.
>>>
>>
>> And by that statement you are ADMITTING that you aren't using the a
>> actual definitions of the field, and thus your statments don't have
>> application to the field.
>>
>
> You are merely asserting learned-by-rote that is anchored in ignorance
> of the mandatory philosophical underpinnings.

Nope, you are conflating your never-learned-because-of-ignorance for truth.

You have proved this ignorance.

>
> I am established the foundation of correct reasoning that every logical
> system must conform to otherwise it is incorrect.
>

And admitting you don't understand the existing systems, so LYING about
your reasoning being applicable.

> To say that an expression of language is true and unprovable is the same
> sort of thing as saying that there is a person X that is both morbidly
> obese and grossly underweight a contradiction in terms.
>

Nope, just shows how STUPID you are.

> Every element of the body of analytic truth is only true on the basis of
> its semantic connections to other elements of the body of analytic
> truth. Tracing through these connections is the proof of this truth.

Confusing Truth with Knowledge.

>
>> PERIOD.
>>
>> Any claims otherwize just proves you are a STUPID LIAR that doesn't
>> understand how logic works.
>>
>
> That you are utterly clueless about the philosophical foundations of
> correct reasoning does not make me a liar.

The fact that you claims things that you have no athority to claim does.

>
>> YOU ARE NOT GOD, and thus can't change the rules of the game.
>>
>
> When the rules are shown to be incorrect then these rules can be
> corrected.

Nope, not unilaterally.

You have just proved you are working outside the systems, so none of
your work has any value, as you haven't shown that any of the things you
are trying to talk about can even actually exist in your new logic system.

>
>> If you want to claim you are, you will need to PROVE it.
>

On 12/17/22 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/16/22 10:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2022 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/22 8:04 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 14:59:36 UTC+2,
>>>>> richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Nope, because in mathematics with infinites you don't have those
>>>>>> properties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is one of the problems with infinities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are assuming that all the properties of the finite numbers hold,
>>>>>> which they don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where's the objective arbiter on such things?
>>>>
>>>> That they generate contradictions, and thus make the system
>>>> worthless due to the power of the principle of explosion, since
>>>> there can be no actual information or knowledge in such a system.
>>>
>>> The principle of explosion is incorrect because semantics are ignored.
>>
>> So, you don't understand how logic works.
>>
>
> It is because logic does not consistently know how correct reasoning
> works. This correctly eliminates the principle of explosion:

So, you are just proving you don't understand how logic works.

You are proving your ignorance.

>
> macro substitution operator :=
> (A ∧ ¬A) := ε // empty string
>
> from every formal system that transforms finite strings into Boolean
> values.
>
> As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory
> statements—
> "All lemons are yellow" and
> "Not all lemons are yellow" —and suppose that both are true.
> If that is the case, anything can be proven, e.g., the assertion that
> "unicorns exist"
>
> "All lemons are yellow" ∧ "Not all lemons are yellow" → "unicorns exist"
>
> becomes ε → "unicorns exist"
> which does not logically follow from ε, thus the non-sequitur error.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>
>
>> You are basically DEFINING that your system is unable to derive any
>> information that you haven't directly put into it.
>>
>> And thus, is NOT a system of logic.
>>
>>>
>>> As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory
>>> statements—"All lemons are yellow" and "Not all lemons are
>>> yellow"—and suppose that both are true. If that is the case, anything
>>> can be proven, e.g., the assertion that "unicorns exist"
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>>>
>>> axiom CATS ⊂ ANIMALS ⊂ LIVING_THINGS
>>> all cats are animals
>>> all animals are living things
>>> ∴ all cats are living things
>>>
>>> ▷ <is a type of> operator borrowed from UML
>>> CAT ▷ ANIMAL ▷ LIVING_THING
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

On 12/17/2022 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/17/22 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/16/2022 8:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/16/22 7:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/2022 10:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/15/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When dealing with possible infinite sets, one definition of "same
>>>>>>> size" is that there can be a bijection made between the two sets,
>>>>>>> i.e. you can build a one-to-one mapping between the sets such
>>>>>>> that EVERY element in one set is mapped to PRECISELY a unique
>>>>>>> element in the other. If that can be done, then the sets are
>>>>>>> defined to be the same size.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, there may be other mappings between the sets that have left
>>>>>>> overs on one side or the other (even an infinite number of them),
>>>>>>> but if a bijection exists, then they are the same size.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This definition also works for finite sets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note also, that when you get into infinities, many (if not most)
>>>>>>> of the comfortable rules we are used to just
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This IS a field that I have studied (an not just learned by rote)
>>>>>>> over the many years of my life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you did not actively examine the philosophical foundations of the
>>>>>> notion of analytic truth itself and make sure that all of the
>>>>>> rules of
>>>>>> math and logic are consistent with these foundations then you merely
>>>>>> have learned-by-rote knowledge of these things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Addendum you could not have possibly have done this because the
>>>>>> philosophical foundations of the notion of analytic truth itself have
>>>>>> never previously been correctly established
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the problem is that Mathematics goes BEYOND the constraints of
>>>>> limiting its definition of Truth to JUST what is analytically
>>>>> proveable.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are making the INCORRECT assumption that only Analytical Truth
>>>>> applies.
>>>>>
>>>>> You system confuses Analytical Proof with actual Truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wil also note that I have a minor learning disability that
>>>>>>> makes it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please elaborate on this I really want to have much more empathy
>>>>>> for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> A do not learn things by "Rote", I need to understand WHY something
>>>>> is true to be able to easily remember it.
>>>>>
>>>> To what extent do you have this problem? Do I really have to tell you
>>>> the same exact things 50 times before you notice that I said it once?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, because just repeating meaningless statements means I will only
>>> get it very slowly, if at all. Your claim by fiat just will not get
>>> into my head, except for me to classify you as a source of non-sense.
>>>
>>
>> It took you five times to notice that I said:
>> KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH
>>
>> You kept saying that I incorrectly conflate knowledge with truth five
>> times after I said that knowledge is a subset of truth.
>
>
> Right, because when you talk about TRUTH, you restrict it to something
> that is known.
>
> There is no state of TRUTH of "Not Known", that is not a "Truth Vaule"
> but a KNOWLEDGE VALUE.

Goldbach's conjecture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
It is true that the truth of Goldbach's conjecture is currently unknown.

>
> A Truth Bearing statement is either True or it is False, it can have no
> other value.
>

It can be unknown that an expression of language is a truth bearer or not.

> A statement can be a Truth Bearer or it can NOT be a Truth Bearer, there
> is no other state.
>
> Thus a statement can be either True, False, or Not a Truth Bearer.
>
> There is no TRUTH value of "Unknown".
>
> That only comes when we talk of our KNOWLEDGE of its Truth value.
>
> Some statements, like relating to the existence (in a system) of
> something that is defined (like a proof) are ALWAYS Truth Bearers, and
> these become Empirical Facts of the system (or they could be Analytical
> Facts if they can be proven).
>

The statement "there is a finite proof of Goldbach's conjecture" might
require an infinite proof, and is thus not a truth bearer.

> The only way to avoid the creation of Emperical Facts is to limit your
> system so that everything that can exist can be shown to exist with a
> finite proof, which generally requires it to have a totally finite and
> bounded domain.
>
> This excludes most fields of Mathematics.
>
>>
>>> You need to EXPLAIN and be LOGICAL for me to remember.
>>>
>>
>> It seems that you have ADD, is this correct?
>
> There may be touches of that, but that isn't it. My memory processes are
> content reliant, it is hard to store just "random" facts, they need
> interconnections to be stored (or maybe to be retrieved).
>

That is to some degree the case with most everyone.
None-the-less when you accuse me of conflating TRUTH with KNOWLEDGE this
sure be entirely settled the very first time that I specify that
KNOWLEDGE is a subset of TRUTH, unless you have something like ADD.

>>
>>> This seems to be beyond you.
>>>
>>> You don't seem to understand what you are saying, so it will be very
>>> hard for you to explain it.
>>
>

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

On 12/17/22 11:58 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/17/2022 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/17/22 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2022 8:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/22 7:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/15/2022 10:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/15/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When dealing with possible infinite sets, one definition of
>>>>>>>> "same size" is that there can be a bijection made between the
>>>>>>>> two sets, i.e. you can build a one-to-one mapping between the
>>>>>>>> sets such that EVERY element in one set is mapped to PRECISELY a
>>>>>>>> unique element in the other. If that can be done, then the sets
>>>>>>>> are defined to be the same size.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note, there may be other mappings between the sets that have
>>>>>>>> left overs on one side or the other (even an infinite number of
>>>>>>>> them), but if a bijection exists, then they are the same size.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This definition also works for finite sets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note also, that when you get into infinities, many (if not most)
>>>>>>>> of the comfortable rules we are used to just
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This IS a field that I have studied (an not just learned by
>>>>>>>> rote) over the many years of my life.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you did not actively examine the philosophical foundations of the
>>>>>>> notion of analytic truth itself and make sure that all of the
>>>>>>> rules of
>>>>>>> math and logic are consistent with these foundations then you merely
>>>>>>> have learned-by-rote knowledge of these things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Addendum you could not have possibly have done this because the
>>>>>>> philosophical foundations of the notion of analytic truth itself
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> never previously been correctly established
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, the problem is that Mathematics goes BEYOND the constraints of
>>>>>> limiting its definition of Truth to JUST what is analytically
>>>>>> proveable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are making the INCORRECT assumption that only Analytical Truth
>>>>>> applies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You system confuses Analytical Proof with actual Truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wil also note that I have a minor learning disability that
>>>>>>>> makes it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please elaborate on this I really want to have much more empathy
>>>>>>> for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A do not learn things by "Rote", I need to understand WHY
>>>>>> something is true to be able to easily remember it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> To what extent do you have this problem? Do I really have to tell you
>>>>> the same exact things 50 times before you notice that I said it once?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, because just repeating meaningless statements means I will only
>>>> get it very slowly, if at all. Your claim by fiat just will not get
>>>> into my head, except for me to classify you as a source of non-sense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It took you five times to notice that I said:
>>> KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH
>>>
>>> You kept saying that I incorrectly conflate knowledge with truth five
>>> times after I said that knowledge is a subset of truth.
>>
>>
>> Right, because when you talk about TRUTH, you restrict it to something
>> that is known.
>>
>> There is no state of TRUTH of "Not Known", that is not a "Truth Vaule"
>> but a KNOWLEDGE VALUE.
>
> Goldbach's conjecture
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> It is true that the truth of Goldbach's conjecture is currently unknown.

Right, which is a statement of KNOWLEDGE, i.e. what do we know of the
state of truth of the statement, not a statement of the actual Truth of
the statement.

>
>>
>> A Truth Bearing statement is either True or it is False, it can have
>> no other value.
>>
>
> It can be unknown that an expression of language is a truth bearer or not.

Which is a statment of KNOWLEDGE, not a statement of the actual TRUTH of
the statement.

>
>> A statement can be a Truth Bearer or it can NOT be a Truth Bearer,
>> there is no other state.
>>
>> Thus a statement can be either True, False, or Not a Truth Bearer.
>>
>> There is no TRUTH value of "Unknown".
>>
>> That only comes when we talk of our KNOWLEDGE of its Truth value.
>>
>> Some statements, like relating to the existence (in a system) of
>> something that is defined (like a proof) are ALWAYS Truth Bearers, and
>> these become Empirical Facts of the system (or they could be
>> Analytical Facts if they can be proven).
>>
>
> The statement "there is a finite proof of Goldbach's conjecture" might
> require an infinite proof, and is thus not a truth bearer.

Nope, becuase the existence of a finite proof is by definition provable
with that finite proof.

Proving that a proof DOESN'T exist might take an infinite number of
steps, but if something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, even if we
can't prove that it doesn't exist with a finite proof.

>
>> The only way to avoid the creation of Emperical Facts is to limit your
>> system so that everything that can exist can be shown to exist with a
>> finite proof, which generally requires it to have a totally finite and
>> bounded domain.
>>
>> This excludes most fields of Mathematics.
>>
>>>
>>>> You need to EXPLAIN and be LOGICAL for me to remember.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that you have ADD, is this correct?
>>
>> There may be touches of that, but that isn't it. My memory processes
>> are content reliant, it is hard to store just "random" facts, they
>> need interconnections to be stored (or maybe to be retrieved).
>>
>
> That is to some degree the case with most everyone.
> None-the-less when you accuse me of conflating TRUTH with KNOWLEDGE this
> sure be entirely settled the very first time that I specify that
> KNOWLEDGE is a subset of TRUTH, unless you have something like ADD.

How does Knowledge being a subset of truth show that?

Cats are a subset of animale.

You may know EVERYTHING about cats, but there may be many things you
don't know about animals in general.

For instance, Cats are warm blooded, but not all animals are.

Thus, saying that KNOWLEDGE comes from proofs doesn't imply that TRUTH
comes from proofs.

There is a set of True statements, disjoint from the set that are known
statments, that are True, but are also unprovable.

These are outside the field of Knowledge that you talk about, but are
still Truths.

You inability to understand that shows your ignorance.

>
>>>
>>>> This seems to be beyond you.
>>>>
>>>> You don't seem to understand what you are saying, so it will be very
>>>> hard for you to explain it.
>>>
>>
>

On 12/16/2022 7:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/16/22 12:28 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference between Truth
>>> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
>> Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
>>
>> You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin full
>> of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't know how to
>> separate them.
>>
>> You don't know the (binary) classification rule for
>> recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
>>
>>
>
>
> But just asking someone to do that shows a lack of understanding of the
> nature of Truth.
>
> Not all Truth is Known, or even Knowable, therefore no one has the
> ability to completely sort every statement into the bins True and False
> (or not True).

Every element of the body of analytic truth is only true on the basis of
its semantic connections to other elements of the body of analytic
truth. Tracing through these connections is the proof of this truth.

If these connections do not exist then an expression of language is not
a truth bearer.

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

On 12/17/2022 10:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/17/22 10:47 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/16/22 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2022 7:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/16/22 12:28 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference between
>>>>>>> Truth
>>>>>>> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
>>>>>> Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin
>>>>>> full of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't know
>>>>>> how to separate them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't know the (binary) classification rule for
>>>>>> recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But just asking someone to do that shows a lack of understanding of
>>>>> the nature of Truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not all Truth is Known, or even Knowable, therefore no one has the
>>>>> ability to completely sort every statement into the bins True and
>>>>> False (or not True).
>>>>
>>>> True/False/Not a truth bearer/Currently Unknown
>>>
>>> The last is NOT a possible value of Truth.
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>> It is currently unknown whether or not Goldbach's conjecture is
>> provable.
>>
>> If Goldbach's conjecture can only be proven though a complete
>> enumeration of every natural number then this makes Goldbach's
>> conjecture not a truth bearer.
>
> Why?
>
> Either it is True or it Isn't.
>
> Either there exists an even number that can not be expressed as the sum
> of two primes (which proves the Conjecture False), or there doesn't.
>
> If there doesn't exist such a number, even if it takes an infinite
> number of operations to show that, it is True.
>

This may be an unknowable truth. In any case we are getting too far off
track.

G ↔ ((F ⊬ G) ∧ (F ⊬ ¬G))
G is true if and only if G is unprovable and irrefutable in F
∃G ∈ F (G ↔ ((F ⊬ G) ∧ (F ⊬ ¬G))) is simply false

based on this foundational theorem
∀φ ∈ T ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊢ ¬φ))

'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

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

On 12/17/22 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/16/2022 7:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/16/22 12:28 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference between Truth
>>>> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
>>> Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
>>>
>>> You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin full
>>> of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't know how to
>>> separate them.
>>>
>>> You don't know the (binary) classification rule for
>>> recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> But just asking someone to do that shows a lack of understanding of
>> the nature of Truth.
>>
>> Not all Truth is Known, or even Knowable, therefore no one has the
>> ability to completely sort every statement into the bins True and
>> False (or not True).
>
> Every element of the body of analytic truth is only true on the basis of
> its semantic connections to other elements of the body of analytic
> truth. Tracing through these connections is the proof of this truth.
>
> If these connections do not exist then an expression of language is not
> a truth bearer.
>

Why? or maybe Why by this definition do you think it applies to Mathematics?

You are defining that "Expressions of Language" are true or not by the
meaning of their words.

What in the meaning of the words"

> Every positive even integer can be written as the sum of two primes.

Determines if this statement is True or not?

It seems that it hangs on the EXISTANCE or not of an even number that
can't be expresses as the sum of two primes.

To then say that it must be determinable by a FINITE sequence of steps,
is a contradiction of definitions.

On 12/17/2022 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/17/22 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/16/22 11:29 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 15:06:27 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/16/22 12:28 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference between
>>>>>>> Truth
>>>>>>> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
>>>>>> Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin
>>>>>> full of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't know
>>>>>> how to separate them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't know the (binary) classification rule for
>>>>>> recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> But just asking someone to do that shows a lack of understanding of
>>>>> the
>>>>> nature of Truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not all Truth is Known, or even Knowable, therefore no one has the
>>>>> ability to completely sort every statement into the bins True and
>>>>> False
>>>>> (or not True).
>>>> This is so peculiar. If not all Truth is known or Knowable why are
>>>> you equating "not True" with False?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because if a statement is a Truth Bearer, its only possibe values are
>>> True or False. There is no other option. PERIOD.
>>>
>>> We might not know the value of it, but it has one.
>>
>> Elements of the body of analytic truth are only true on the basis of
>> their semantic connections to other elements. When some of these
>> connections are unknown then these elements are in the body of truth yet
>> missing from the body of knowledge.
>>
>
> And the problem is you are talking about fields that don't limit
> themselves to "analytic truth".

It is common knowledge that math is a subset of analytic truth and your
ignorance of this basic fact is no rebuttal at all.

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

On 12/17/22 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/17/2022 10:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/17/22 10:47 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/22 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/16/2022 7:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/16/22 12:28 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2,
>>>>>>> richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference
>>>>>>>> between Truth
>>>>>>>> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
>>>>>>> Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin
>>>>>>> full of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't know
>>>>>>> how to separate them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't know the (binary) classification rule for
>>>>>>> recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But just asking someone to do that shows a lack of understanding
>>>>>> of the nature of Truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not all Truth is Known, or even Knowable, therefore no one has the
>>>>>> ability to completely sort every statement into the bins True and
>>>>>> False (or not True).
>>>>>
>>>>> True/False/Not a truth bearer/Currently Unknown
>>>>
>>>> The last is NOT a possible value of Truth.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>>> It is currently unknown whether or not Goldbach's conjecture is
>>> provable.
>>>
>>> If Goldbach's conjecture can only be proven though a complete
>>> enumeration of every natural number then this makes Goldbach's
>>> conjecture not a truth bearer.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Either it is True or it Isn't.
>>
>> Either there exists an even number that can not be expressed as the
>> sum of two primes (which proves the Conjecture False), or there doesn't.
>>
>> If there doesn't exist such a number, even if it takes an infinite
>> number of operations to show that, it is True.
>>
>
> This may be an unknowable truth. In any case we are getting too far off
> track.

Why? IF you admit that a Truth might be unknowable, that is PRECISELY
the point. An unknowable Truth will be unprovable, as all provable
things are knowable by discovering the proof.

>
> G ↔ ((F ⊬ G) ∧ (F ⊬ ¬G))
> G is true if and only if G is unprovable and irrefutable in F
> ∃G ∈ F (G ↔ ((F ⊬ G) ∧ (F ⊬ ¬G))) is simply false
>
> based on this foundational theorem
> ∀φ ∈ T ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊢ ¬φ))
>
> '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.

Which isn't the definition of Truth is Russell's system, so A LIE.

It is Wittgenstein injecting his own ideas into a system.

>
> https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
>
>
>

On 12/17/22 12:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/17/2022 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/17/22 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/22 11:29 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 15:06:27 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/16/22 12:28 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2,
>>>>>>> richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference
>>>>>>>> between Truth
>>>>>>>> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
>>>>>>> Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin
>>>>>>> full of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't know
>>>>>>> how to separate them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't know the (binary) classification rule for
>>>>>>> recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But just asking someone to do that shows a lack of understanding
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> nature of Truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not all Truth is Known, or even Knowable, therefore no one has the
>>>>>> ability to completely sort every statement into the bins True and
>>>>>> False
>>>>>> (or not True).
>>>>> This is so peculiar. If not all Truth is known or Knowable why are
>>>>> you equating "not True" with False?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because if a statement is a Truth Bearer, its only possibe values
>>>> are True or False. There is no other option. PERIOD.
>>>>
>>>> We might not know the value of it, but it has one.
>>>
>>> Elements of the body of analytic truth are only true on the basis of
>>> their semantic connections to other elements. When some of these
>>> connections are unknown then these elements are in the body of truth yet
>>> missing from the body of knowledge.
>>>
>>
>> And the problem is you are talking about fields that don't limit
>> themselves to "analytic truth".
>
> It is common knowledge that math is a subset of analytic truth and your
> ignorance of this basic fact is no rebuttal at all.
>

Maybe YOU think it is, but it isn't by your definition of Anayltical Truth.

So your claim, with your definitions, is just WRONG.

You inability to understand this just proves your ignorance and stupidity.

On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 15:59:40 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 12/17/22 3:30 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 02:16:51 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On 12/16/22 11:44 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 15:06:48 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Then your system can't do logic.
> >>> What's your classification rule for "doing" vs "not doing" logic?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You don't understand that the Principle of Explosion isn't an INPUT to a
> >>>> logic system, but something demonstratable from the basic fabric of a
> >>>> logic system.
> >>> The principle of explosion is not demonstrable in para-consistent logic, so you clearly thing that para-consistent logic is not logic.
> >>>
> >>> Weird. It has "logic" in its name.
> >>>
> >>>> You demostrate that you logic systm is worthless by the ilogic it generates.
> >>> Look. I have no idea what your objective measure for "worth" is, but in so far as logic systems have semantic properties some explode due to inconsistencies and some don't.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps some people find worth in logic systems which don't explode? Peculiar idea, I know!
> >> But since yours DO, it doesn't matter.
> > They don't. By design.
> No, yours DO explode, but you are apparentlly too stupid to see it.
You are too stupid to see that they don't.

> All you are doing is adding more explosive power by adding the
> INCONSISTANT "rule" that they can't.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/

"Paraconsistent logic challenges this standard view. A logical consequence relation is said to be paraconsistent if it is not explosive. Thus, if a consequence relation is paraconsistent, then even in circumstances where the available information is inconsistent, the consequence relation does not explode into triviality. Thus, paraconsistent logic accommodates inconsistency in a controlled way that treats inconsistent information as potentially informative."

Particular applications include automated reasoning and AI.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/#ArtiInte

> In other words, your systems are FUNDAMENTALLY flawed because they are
> based on incorrect assumptions.
There's no such thing as "incorrect" assumptions.

Assumptions just are... assumptions. They have implications and systems built upon those building blocks have particular properties.

In particular - the property of paraconsistent logic is the lack of explosivity.

On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 17:01:36 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Nope, your assertion is self referential/circular ergo it is a category
> error.
It is self-referential. Ergo the system is capable of reflection.

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

You call it an error. I call it a feature.

The user is always right and I am the user.

On 12/17/2022 10:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/17/22 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/16/2022 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/16/22 2:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/2022 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/15/22 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which means you just stipulated that you are not working on the
>>>>>>> ACTUAL Halting Problem,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am talking about the definition of the term {analytical} as in
>>>>>> the analytic versus empirical distinction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the Halting Problem isn't about such a distinction, ait shows
>>>>> you don't know what you are talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have not been talking about the halting problem anywhere in this
>>>> entire thread.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, it also means you are not talking about Godel, as that is
>>> mathematics, which is also not a "Pure Analytic" domain, as
>>> Mathematics isn't.
>>
>> It is common knowledge that mathematics is a subset of analytical truth.
>>
>
> Nope, not ny YOUR definition at least.

It is stipulated that every expression of language that can be
determined to be true entirely based on its meaning without requiring
sense data form the sense organs is an analytic expression of language.

Within the above stipulated definition all of mathematics and logic are
analytic expressions of language.

I see four rabbits on my lawn is an empirical expression of language
because it requires eyesight. 27 + 3 = 30 is analytic because it does
not require sense data from the sense organs to verify that it is true.

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

On 12/17/2022 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/17/22 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/16/22 2:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/2022 10:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, because you are defining it in a way that you are requiring
>>>>> Mathematics to be based on it, but make it so that it can't be.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are showing your stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> Like I said you only know these things on the basis of learned-by-rote
>>>> dogmatic rules thus haven't the slightest clue whether or not these
>>>> rules are consistent. When I point out that these rules are
>>>> inconsistent
>>>> you say that I am wrong because the rules do not say that they are
>>>> inconsistent.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And by that statement you are ADMITTING that you aren't using the a
>>> actual definitions of the field, and thus your statments don't have
>>> application to the field.
>>>
>>
>> You are merely asserting learned-by-rote that is anchored in ignorance
>> of the mandatory philosophical underpinnings.
>
> Nope, you are conflating your never-learned-because-of-ignorance for truth.
>
> You have proved this ignorance.
>
>>
>> I am established the foundation of correct reasoning that every logical
>> system must conform to otherwise it is incorrect.
>>
>
> And admitting you don't understand the existing systems, so LYING about
> your reasoning being applicable.
>

Because my reasoning is categorical it applies to the infinite set of
all analytic truth. Every expression of language that cannot possibly be
proven or refuted is not a truth bearer. This include every logical
system that currently exists or all those that could be defined in the
future.

>
>> To say that an expression of language is true and unprovable is the same
>> sort of thing as saying that there is a person X that is both morbidly
>> obese and grossly underweight a contradiction in terms.
>>
>
> Nope, just shows how STUPID you are.
>
>> Every element of the body of analytic truth is only true on the basis of
>> its semantic connections to other elements of the body of analytic
>> truth. Tracing through these connections is the proof of this truth.
>
> Confusing Truth with Knowledge.
>

Every element of the body of analytic truth is only true on the basis of
its semantic connections to other elements of the body of analytic
truth. Tracing through these connections is the proof of this truth.

>>
>>> PERIOD.
>>>
>>> Any claims otherwize just proves you are a STUPID LIAR that doesn't
>>> understand how logic works.
>>>
>>
>> That you are utterly clueless about the philosophical foundations of
>> correct reasoning does not make me a liar.
>
> The fact that you claims things that you have no athority to claim does.

The nature of truth itself is my full authority.

>>
>>> YOU ARE NOT GOD, and thus can't change the rules of the game.
>>>
>>
>> When the rules are shown to be incorrect then these rules can be
>> corrected.
>
> Nope, not unilaterally.
>
> You have just proved you are working outside the systems, so none of
> your work has any value, as you haven't shown that any of the things you
> are trying to talk about can even actually exist in your new logic system.

There cannot possibly exist any counter-example to this statement:

Every element of the body of analytic truth is only true on the basis of
its semantic connections to other elements of the body of analytic
truth. Tracing through these connections is the proof of this truth.

>>
>>> If you want to claim you are, you will need to PROVE it.
>>
>

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

On 12/17/2022 10:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/17/22 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/16/22 10:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/2022 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/15/22 8:04 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 14:59:36 UTC+2,
>>>>>> richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Nope, because in mathematics with infinites you don't have those
>>>>>>> properties.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is one of the problems with infinities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are assuming that all the properties of the finite numbers hold,
>>>>>>> which they don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where's the objective arbiter on such things?
>>>>>
>>>>> That they generate contradictions, and thus make the system
>>>>> worthless due to the power of the principle of explosion, since
>>>>> there can be no actual information or knowledge in such a system.
>>>>
>>>> The principle of explosion is incorrect because semantics are ignored.
>>>
>>> So, you don't understand how logic works.
>>>
>>
>> It is because logic does not consistently know how correct reasoning
>> works. This correctly eliminates the principle of explosion:
>
> So, you are just proving you don't understand how logic works.
>
> You are proving your ignorance.
>

The principle of explosion is self-evidently semantically incorrect.
Here is how to fix it: (A ∧ ¬A) := ε // empty string
thus (A ∧ ¬A) → B, B does not logically follow from the empty string.

>>
>> macro substitution operator :=
>> (A ∧ ¬A) := ε // empty string
>>
>> from every formal system that transforms finite strings into Boolean
>> values.
>>
>> As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory
>> statements—
>> "All lemons are yellow" and
>> "Not all lemons are yellow" —and suppose that both are true.
>> If that is the case, anything can be proven, e.g., the assertion that
>> "unicorns exist"
>>
>> "All lemons are yellow" ∧ "Not all lemons are yellow" → "unicorns exist"
>>
>> becomes ε → "unicorns exist"
>> which does not logically follow from ε, thus the non-sequitur error.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>>
>>
>>> You are basically DEFINING that your system is unable to derive any
>>> information that you haven't directly put into it.
>>>
>>> And thus, is NOT a system of logic.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory
>>>> statements—"All lemons are yellow" and "Not all lemons are
>>>> yellow"—and suppose that both are true. If that is the case,
>>>> anything can be proven, e.g., the assertion that "unicorns exist"
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>>>>
>>>> axiom CATS ⊂ ANIMALS ⊂ LIVING_THINGS
>>>> all cats are animals
>>>> all animals are living things
>>>> ∴ all cats are living things
>>>>
>>>> ▷ <is a type of> operator borrowed from UML
>>>> CAT ▷ ANIMAL ▷ LIVING_THING
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

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

On 12/17/2022 11:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/17/22 11:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/17/2022 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/17/22 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2022 8:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/16/22 7:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/15/2022 10:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/15/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When dealing with possible infinite sets, one definition of
>>>>>>>>> "same size" is that there can be a bijection made between the
>>>>>>>>> two sets, i.e. you can build a one-to-one mapping between the
>>>>>>>>> sets such that EVERY element in one set is mapped to PRECISELY
>>>>>>>>> a unique element in the other. If that can be done, then the
>>>>>>>>> sets are defined to be the same size.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note, there may be other mappings between the sets that have
>>>>>>>>> left overs on one side or the other (even an infinite number of
>>>>>>>>> them), but if a bijection exists, then they are the same size.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This definition also works for finite sets.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note also, that when you get into infinities, many (if not
>>>>>>>>> most) of the comfortable rules we are used to just
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This IS a field that I have studied (an not just learned by
>>>>>>>>> rote) over the many years of my life.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you did not actively examine the philosophical foundations of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> notion of analytic truth itself and make sure that all of the
>>>>>>>> rules of
>>>>>>>> math and logic are consistent with these foundations then you
>>>>>>>> merely
>>>>>>>> have learned-by-rote knowledge of these things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Addendum you could not have possibly have done this because the
>>>>>>>> philosophical foundations of the notion of analytic truth itself
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> never previously been correctly established
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, the problem is that Mathematics goes BEYOND the constraints
>>>>>>> of limiting its definition of Truth to JUST what is analytically
>>>>>>> proveable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are making the INCORRECT assumption that only Analytical
>>>>>>> Truth applies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You system confuses Analytical Proof with actual Truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wil also note that I have a minor learning disability that
>>>>>>>>> makes it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please elaborate on this I really want to have much more empathy
>>>>>>>> for you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A do not learn things by "Rote", I need to understand WHY
>>>>>>> something is true to be able to easily remember it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> To what extent do you have this problem? Do I really have to tell you
>>>>>> the same exact things 50 times before you notice that I said it once?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, because just repeating meaningless statements means I will only
>>>>> get it very slowly, if at all. Your claim by fiat just will not get
>>>>> into my head, except for me to classify you as a source of non-sense.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It took you five times to notice that I said:
>>>> KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH
>>>>
>>>> You kept saying that I incorrectly conflate knowledge with truth
>>>> five times after I said that knowledge is a subset of truth.
>>>
>>>
>>> Right, because when you talk about TRUTH, you restrict it to
>>> something that is known.
>>>
>>> There is no state of TRUTH of "Not Known", that is not a "Truth
>>> Vaule" but a KNOWLEDGE VALUE.
>>
>> Goldbach's conjecture
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>> It is true that the truth of Goldbach's conjecture is currently unknown.
>
> Right, which is a statement of KNOWLEDGE, i.e. what do we know of the
> state of truth of the statement, not a statement of the actual Truth of
> the statement.
>
>>
>>>
>>> A Truth Bearing statement is either True or it is False, it can have
>>> no other value.
>>>
>>
>> It can be unknown that an expression of language is a truth bearer or
>> not.
>
> Which is a statment of KNOWLEDGE, not a statement of the actual TRUTH of
> the statement.
>
>>
>>> A statement can be a Truth Bearer or it can NOT be a Truth Bearer,
>>> there is no other state.
>>>
>>> Thus a statement can be either True, False, or Not a Truth Bearer.
>>>
>>> There is no TRUTH value of "Unknown".
>>>
>>> That only comes when we talk of our KNOWLEDGE of its Truth value.
>>>
>>> Some statements, like relating to the existence (in a system) of
>>> something that is defined (like a proof) are ALWAYS Truth Bearers,
>>> and these become Empirical Facts of the system (or they could be
>>> Analytical Facts if they can be proven).
>>>
>>
>> The statement "there is a finite proof of Goldbach's conjecture" might
>> require an infinite proof, and is thus not a truth bearer.
>
> Nope, becuase the existence of a finite proof is by definition provable
> with that finite proof.
>
> Proving that a proof DOESN'T exist might take an infinite number of
> steps, but if something doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, even if we
> can't prove that it doesn't exist with a finite proof.
>
>>
>>> The only way to avoid the creation of Emperical Facts is to limit
>>> your system so that everything that can exist can be shown to exist
>>> with a finite proof, which generally requires it to have a totally
>>> finite and bounded domain.
>>>
>>> This excludes most fields of Mathematics.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You need to EXPLAIN and be LOGICAL for me to remember.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems that you have ADD, is this correct?
>>>
>>> There may be touches of that, but that isn't it. My memory processes
>>> are content reliant, it is hard to store just "random" facts, they
>>> need interconnections to be stored (or maybe to be retrieved).
>>>
>>
>> That is to some degree the case with most everyone.
>> None-the-less when you accuse me of conflating TRUTH with KNOWLEDGE this
>> sure be entirely settled the very first time that I specify that
>> KNOWLEDGE is a subset of TRUTH, unless you have something like ADD.
>
> How does Knowledge being a subset of truth show that?
>
> Cats are a subset of animale.
>
> You may know EVERYTHING about cats, but there may be many things you
> don't know about animals in general.
>
> For instance, Cats are warm blooded, but not all animals are.
>
> Thus, saying that KNOWLEDGE comes from proofs doesn't imply that TRUTH
> comes from proofs.
>
> There is a set of True statements, disjoint from the set that are known
> statments, that are True, but are also unprovable.
>
> These are outside the field of Knowledge that you talk about, but are
> still Truths.
>
> You inability to understand that shows your ignorance.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> This seems to be beyond you.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't seem to understand what you are saying, so it will be
>>>>> very hard for you to explain it.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

On 12/17/2022 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/17/22 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/16/2022 7:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/16/22 12:28 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference between
>>>>> Truth
>>>>> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
>>>> Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
>>>>
>>>> You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin full
>>>> of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't know how to
>>>> separate them.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know the (binary) classification rule for
>>>> recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But just asking someone to do that shows a lack of understanding of
>>> the nature of Truth.
>>>
>>> Not all Truth is Known, or even Knowable, therefore no one has the
>>> ability to completely sort every statement into the bins True and
>>> False (or not True).
>>
>> Every element of the body of analytic truth is only true on the basis of
>> its semantic connections to other elements of the body of analytic
>> truth. Tracing through these connections is the proof of this truth.
>>
>> If these connections do not exist then an expression of language is
>> not a truth bearer.
>>
>
> Why? or maybe Why by this definition do you think it applies to
> Mathematics?
>
> You are defining that "Expressions of Language" are true or not by the
> meaning of their words.
>
> What in the meaning of the words"
>

Expressions of language that cannot possibly be shown to be true on the
basis of their meaning are excluded form the body of analytic truth by
definition.

>> Every positive even integer can be written as the sum of two primes.
>
> Determines if this statement is True or not?
>
> It seems that it hangs on the EXISTANCE or not of an even number that
> can't be expresses as the sum of two primes.
>
> To then say that it must be determinable by a FINITE sequence of steps,
> is a contradiction of definitions.

This is the border case. It is obvious that it is not currently an
element of the body of analytic knowledge. It might be an element of the
body of analytic truth or not depending on exactly what "possibly be
shown to be true" means. I would say that because an infinite
enumeration cannot possibly occur that it may not be a truth bearer.

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

On 12/17/2022 12:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/17/22 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/17/2022 10:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/17/22 10:47 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/16/22 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/16/2022 7:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/16/22 12:28 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2,
>>>>>>>> richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference
>>>>>>>>> between Truth
>>>>>>>>> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
>>>>>>>> Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin
>>>>>>>> full of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't know
>>>>>>>> how to separate them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't know the (binary) classification rule for
>>>>>>>> recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But just asking someone to do that shows a lack of understanding
>>>>>>> of the nature of Truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not all Truth is Known, or even Knowable, therefore no one has
>>>>>>> the ability to completely sort every statement into the bins True
>>>>>>> and False (or not True).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True/False/Not a truth bearer/Currently Unknown
>>>>>
>>>>> The last is NOT a possible value of Truth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>>>> It is currently unknown whether or not Goldbach's conjecture is
>>>> provable.
>>>>
>>>> If Goldbach's conjecture can only be proven though a complete
>>>> enumeration of every natural number then this makes Goldbach's
>>>> conjecture not a truth bearer.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Either it is True or it Isn't.
>>>
>>> Either there exists an even number that can not be expressed as the
>>> sum of two primes (which proves the Conjecture False), or there doesn't.
>>>
>>> If there doesn't exist such a number, even if it takes an infinite
>>> number of operations to show that, it is True.
>>>
>>
>> This may be an unknowable truth. In any case we are getting too far
>> off track.
>
> Why? IF you admit that a Truth might be unknowable, that is PRECISELY
> the point. An unknowable Truth will be unprovable, as all provable
> things are knowable by discovering the proof.
>

Every element of the body of analytic truth is only true on the basis of
its semantic connections to other elements of the body of analytic
truth. Tracing through these connections is the proof of this truth.

The above excludes every undecidable proposition, Goldbach is an
undecided proposition.

>>
>> G ↔ ((F ⊬ G) ∧ (F ⊬ ¬G))
>> G is true if and only if G is unprovable and irrefutable in F
>> ∃G ∈ F (G ↔ ((F ⊬ G) ∧ (F ⊬ ¬G))) is simply false
>>
>> based on this foundational theorem
>> ∀φ ∈ T ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊢ ¬φ))
>>
>> '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.
>
> Which isn't the definition of Truth is Russell's system, so A LIE.
>

It is fundamentally the way the truth works and people that only know
math on the basis of learned-by-rote rules simply don't have the
capacity to examine the correctness of these rules.

> It is Wittgenstein injecting his own ideas into a system.

Wittgenstein and I examine the foundations of correct reasoning, math
and logic people make sure to utterly ignore these foundations because
they lack the capacity to examine them.

"All lemons are yellow" and
"Not all lemons are yellow"
∴ "unicorns exist"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

Is semantic nonsense.

>>
>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.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 12/17/2022 12:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/17/22 12:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/17/2022 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/17/22 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/16/22 11:29 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 15:06:27 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/16/22 12:28 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2,
>>>>>>>> richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference
>>>>>>>>> between Truth
>>>>>>>>> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
>>>>>>>> Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin
>>>>>>>> full of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't know
>>>>>>>> how to separate them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't know the (binary) classification rule for
>>>>>>>> recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But just asking someone to do that shows a lack of understanding
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> nature of Truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not all Truth is Known, or even Knowable, therefore no one has the
>>>>>>> ability to completely sort every statement into the bins True and
>>>>>>> False
>>>>>>> (or not True).
>>>>>> This is so peculiar. If not all Truth is known or Knowable why are
>>>>>> you equating "not True" with False?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because if a statement is a Truth Bearer, its only possibe values
>>>>> are True or False. There is no other option. PERIOD.
>>>>>
>>>>> We might not know the value of it, but it has one.
>>>>
>>>> Elements of the body of analytic truth are only true on the basis of
>>>> their semantic connections to other elements. When some of these
>>>> connections are unknown then these elements are in the body of truth
>>>> yet
>>>> missing from the body of knowledge.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And the problem is you are talking about fields that don't limit
>>> themselves to "analytic truth".
>>
>> It is common knowledge that math is a subset of analytic truth and your
>> ignorance of this basic fact is no rebuttal at all.
>>
>
> Maybe YOU think it is, but it isn't by your definition of Anayltical Truth.
>
> So your claim, with your definitions, is just WRONG.
>
> You inability to understand this just proves your ignorance and stupidity.

It is stipulated that every expression of language that can be
determined to be true entirely based on its meaning without requiring
sense data form the sense organs is an analytic expression of language.

Within the above stipulated definition all of mathematics and logic are
analytic expressions of language.

I see four rabbits on my lawn is an empirical expression of language
because it requires eyesight. 27 + 3 = 30 is analytic because it does
not require sense data from the sense organs to verify that it is true.

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

On 12/18/22 10:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/17/2022 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/17/22 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2022 7:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/22 12:28 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference between
>>>>>> Truth
>>>>>> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
>>>>> Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin
>>>>> full of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't know
>>>>> how to separate them.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't know the (binary) classification rule for
>>>>> recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But just asking someone to do that shows a lack of understanding of
>>>> the nature of Truth.
>>>>
>>>> Not all Truth is Known, or even Knowable, therefore no one has the
>>>> ability to completely sort every statement into the bins True and
>>>> False (or not True).
>>>
>>> Every element of the body of analytic truth is only true on the basis of
>>> its semantic connections to other elements of the body of analytic
>>> truth. Tracing through these connections is the proof of this truth.
>>>
>>> If these connections do not exist then an expression of language is
>>> not a truth bearer.
>>>
>>
>> Why? or maybe Why by this definition do you think it applies to
>> Mathematics?
>>
>> You are defining that "Expressions of Language" are true or not by the
>> meaning of their words.
>>
>> What in the meaning of the words"
>>
>
> Expressions of language that cannot possibly be shown to be true on the
> basis of their meaning are excluded form the body of analytic truth by
> definition.

The you must think that the Collatz Conjecture can not be an analytic
statement, as it can't b4 shown true (or false) just on the meaning of
the words.

That means MOST of Mathematics is "outside" this Analytical space you
are defining,
>
>>> Every positive even integer can be written as the sum of two primes.
>>
>> Determines if this statement is True or not?
>>
>> It seems that it hangs on the EXISTANCE or not of an even number that
>> can't be expresses as the sum of two primes.
>>
>> To then say that it must be determinable by a FINITE sequence of
>> steps, is a contradiction of definitions.
>
> This is the border case. It is obvious that it is not currently an
> element of the body of analytic knowledge. It might be an element of the
> body of analytic truth or not depending on exactly what "possibly be
> shown to be true" means. I would say that because an infinite
> enumeration cannot possibly occur that it may not be a truth bearer.
>

There is no "finite" connection limit on "Truth", only "Proof".

(Please provide a reputable source if you disagree, otherwise it is just
another of your ignorant claims)