On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this in the
>>>>>> header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>
>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>
>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org NNTP
>>>>> server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>
>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I am
>>> sure of them.
>>>
>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember who)
>>> already pointed out this error to you when you were claiming the
>>> poster in question was from Germany. That's like assuming that
>>> someone must be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly false
>> until independently confirmed. That is how first-principles reasoning
>> works:
>>
>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to reverse-engineer
>> complicated problems and unleash creative possibility. Sometimes
>> called “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break down
>> complicated problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from
>> the ground up.  https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>
>
> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories', since
> they are actually wrong.
>
> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>
> FAIL.

It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not correspond
to conventional wisdom because I have corrected the errors in the
philosophical underpinnings of this conventional wisdom. People acting
like sheep say that I am wrong because they are attached to the
conventional wisdom.

When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have is gibberish
double talk anchored in the fact that they simply do not believe me.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this in
>>>>>>>> the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org NNTP
>>>>>>> server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I am
>>>>> sure of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember who)
>>>>> already pointed out this error to you when you were claiming the
>>>>> poster in question was from Germany. That's like assuming that
>>>>> someone must be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly false
>>>> until independently confirmed. That is how first-principles
>>>> reasoning works:
>>>>
>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first principles,” the
>>>> idea is to break down complicated problems into basic elements and
>>>> then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories', since
>>> they are actually wrong.
>>>
>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>
>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not correspond
>> to conventional wisdom because I have corrected the errors in the
>> philosophical underpinnings of this conventional wisdom. People acting
>> like sheep say that I am wrong because they are attached to the
>> conventional wisdom.
>>
>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have is
>> gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that they simply do not
>> believe me.
>>
>
> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't conform to the
> RULES of the field. They just are not truths, as truths by definition,
> conform to reality, and in a logical field, that includes its rules and
> definitions.
>

When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with themselves then
this inconsistency cannot be ignored and must be resolved.

> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT 'Gibberish', they are
> pointing out that you are BREAKING THE RULES of the field.

No they are not. You simply do not believe that this repeating pattern
can be recognized by embedded_H even though you yourself already
acknowledged that it is an infinitely repeating pattern.

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩

Then these steps would keep repeating:
Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...

> Logically,
> you are an OUTLAW. You can not accept them, because your mind is stuck
> in your fantasy where you THINK you know something that no one else
> does, but that idea is just a lie.
>
> You claims that you have somehow 'proved' something are just flat out
> LIES as the definition of Truth means it obeys the reality of the
> system. Perhaps the simplest one to point out is your insistance that
> the behavior of the simulation of <H^> <H^> does not correspond to the
> behavior of the machine H^ applied to <H^>, when by all definitions of
> simulation, that is the plain meaning.

The fact that embedded_H is applied to a copy of itself reveals
something new that conventional wisdom has never sufficiently accounted
for. No one has ever examined the notion of infinitely nested simulation
applied to the halting problem counter-examples prior to my analysis.

THAT A SIMULATION MUST BE ABORTED TO PREVENT THE INFINITE EXECUTION OF
THIS SIMULATION IS A CORRECT MEASURE THAT THIS INPUT SPECIFIES A
NON-HALTING SEQUENCE OF CONFIGURATIONS.

ALL THAT YOU CAN SAY AS A REBUTTAL TO THAT IS ESSENTIALLY
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH: I REALLY DON'T BELIEVE YOU.

Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ depends on embedded_H aborting its simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
embedded_H cannot depend on anything else aborting its simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩
⟨Ĥ⟩.

(a) You know that these two facts are true.

(b) You know that these two facts derive a different sequence of
configurations.

∴ any claim that these two sequences of configurations must be identical
is disingenuous at best.

> If a simulation does not match
> the thing it is supposed to be simulating, the simulation is inaccurate.
> You even admit (or have in the past) that H^ applied to <H^> Halts,
> which means the ONLY correct answer for what a simulation of <H^> <H^>
> should show is that it halts. BY DEFINITION.
>
> In many ways I pity you, as it seems you have some ideas that might be
> worth discussing (in a different venue) but you have basically closed
> that door because you are insainly committed you mind to a path that you
> can not support. This seems to indicate that you really don't understand
> what Truth actually is, and are going to suffer the consequences of that.
>
> You have FAILED. You are going to pay for your rebellion to the truth.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this in
>>>>>>>> the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org NNTP
>>>>>>> server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I am
>>>>> sure of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember who)
>>>>> already pointed out this error to you when you were claiming the
>>>>> poster in question was from Germany. That's like assuming that
>>>>> someone must be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly false
>>>> until independently confirmed. That is how first-principles
>>>> reasoning works:
>>>>
>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first principles,” the
>>>> idea is to break down complicated problems into basic elements and
>>>> then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories', since
>>> they are actually wrong.
>>>
>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>
>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not correspond
>> to conventional wisdom
>
> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
> (uninteresting) ways...
>

If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have perfectly summed
up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel

Wittgenstein
Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the
philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of
language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their philosophical
foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of logicians and
mathematicians. He understood these things at the deepest philosophical
level. He was very famous in his day for his knowledge of the philosophy
of logic.

If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to explain the
specific error that Wittgenstein made.

Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and asserts that
Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.

Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:

"Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof." In other words his proof has the exact same basis
as the liar paradox, that he refers to as the "liar antinomy".

I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer" because
it is self-contradictory.

Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar paradox Saul
Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.

Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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

Because you never notice this when it is reiterated countless times you
must either be a liar or have actual brain damage.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

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

As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn

whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
You either have brain damage or are a liar.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this in
>>>>>>>>>> the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org
>>>>>>>>> NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I
>>>>>>> am sure of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember who)
>>>>>>> already pointed out this error to you when you were claiming the
>>>>>>> poster in question was from Germany. That's like assuming that
>>>>>>> someone must be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly false
>>>>>> until independently confirmed. That is how first-principles
>>>>>> reasoning works:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first principles,”
>>>>>> the idea is to break down complicated problems into basic elements
>>>>>> and then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories',
>>>>> since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>
>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>
>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>
>>
>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have perfectly
>> summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>
>>
>> Wittgenstein
>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the
>> philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy
>> of language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>
>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of logicians
>> and mathematicians. He understood these things at the deepest
>> philosophical level. He was very famous in his day for his knowledge
>> of the philosophy of logic.
>>
>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to explain the
>> specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>
>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and asserts that
>> Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>
>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>
>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof." In other words his proof has the exact same
>> basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as the "liar antinomy".
>>
>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer" because
>> it is self-contradictory.
>>
>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar paradox Saul
>> Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>
>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>
>>
>
> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the complexities of
> the problem. B
Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made (his
view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply utterly clueless
about the deep analysis of these things, you only know them by rote.

Wittgenstein is quoted on page 6
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

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

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

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

On 2/22/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org
>>>>>>>>>>> NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I
>>>>>>>>> am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember
>>>>>>>>> who) already pointed out this error to you when you were
>>>>>>>>> claiming the poster in question was from Germany. That's like
>>>>>>>>> assuming that someone must be from Mountain View CA since they
>>>>>>>>> use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first principles,”
>>>>>>>> the idea is to break down complicated problems into basic
>>>>>>>> elements and then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories',
>>>>>>> since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have perfectly
>>>> summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wittgenstein
>>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the
>>>> philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the
>>>> philosophy of language.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>>
>>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of
>>>> logicians and mathematicians. He understood these things at the
>>>> deepest philosophical level. He was very famous in his day for his
>>>> knowledge of the philosophy of logic.
>>>>
>>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to explain
>>>> the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and asserts
>>>> that Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>>>
>>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>>>
>>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>> undecidability proof." In other words his proof has the exact same
>>>> basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as the "liar antinomy".
>>>>
>>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer"
>>>> because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>
>>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar paradox
>>>> Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>>>
>>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the complexities
>>> of the problem. B
>> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made (his
>> view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply utterly
>> clueless about the deep analysis of these things, you only know them
>> by rote.
>>
>> Wittgenstein  is quoted on page 6
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>
>>
>
> Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.
>
> His Quote that you highlight:
>
> 'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved in Russell's
> system; and 'false in Russell's system' means:the opposite has been
> proved in Russell's system
>
> is not a correct statement.
So then what could 'True in Russell's system' mean ???

Note that Haskell Curry is quoted before Wittgenstein has a comparable
notion of what "true in a formal system" means.

Let 𝓣 be such a theory. Then the elementary statements which belong to
𝓣 we shall call the elementary theorems of 𝓣; we also say that these
elementary statements are true for 𝓣. Thus, given 𝓣, an elementary
theorem is an elementary statement which is true...

Olcott's true in a formal system 𝓣 is exactly Curry's elementary
theorems of 𝓣 and statements of 𝓣 derived by applying truth preserving
operations beginning with Curry's elementary theorems of 𝓣 as premises.

When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations you
always necessarily end up with truth.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 2/23/2022 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/23/22 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2022 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/23/22 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/22 6:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages with this in the header that will get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the aioe.org NNTP server and not to any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't remember who) already pointed out this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error to you when you were claiming the poster in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question was from Germany. That's like assuming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that someone must be from Mountain View CA since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reverse-engineer complicated problems and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unleash creative possibility. Sometimes called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> break down complicated problems into basic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not correspond to conventional wisdom because I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have corrected the errors in the philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underpinnings of this conventional wisdom. People
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acting like sheep say that I am wrong because they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they have is gibberish double talk anchored in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that they simply do not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conform to the RULES of the field. They just are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truths, as truths by definition, conform to reality,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in a logical field, that includes its rules and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with themselves then this inconsistency cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored and must be resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Gibberish', they are pointing out that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BREAKING THE RULES of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeating pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though you yourself already acknowledged that it is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not it is aborted because halting is required to reach a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countless times you must either be a liar or have actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brain damage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the final state because you give up when your machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can't possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn because
>>>>>>>>>> it is infinitely recursive.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then H can't have aborted its simulation, so it didn't answer,
>>>>>>>>> and it FAILED.
>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
>>>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This doesn't present the pattern you just claim, so you just
>>>>>>> committed that fallacy of the Red Herring.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can't tell that the above is very obviously an infinite
>>>>>> loop you are far too ignorant to have any chance of providing
>>>>>> anything close to an accurate review of my work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep up that Fallacious And Invalid Logic and some day someone
>>>>> might beleive you.
>>>>>
>>>>> I NEVER said that it is impossible to detect SOME infinite loops.
>>>>>
>>>>> I said that H can't correctly detect an infinite loop in H^ and
>>>>> abort its simulation to report it, because in doing so H breaks the
>>>>> loop so it doesn't exist.
>>>>
>>>> That is freaking nuts.
>>>>
>>>> Just like a compiler that stops compiling when there are compile errors
>>>> a halt decider stops simulating when there are infinite execution
>>>> errors. You can't be that stupid so you must be a liar.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your problem is you just don't understand what a Turing Machine is.
>>>
>>> H only partially simulates what the machine does.
>>
>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulates its input until it proves that this input
>> cannot possibly reach its final state.
>>
>
> Which it can only do if it NEVER aborts, because if embedded_H (and thus
> H) goes to H.Qn then H^ also goes to H^.Qn and Halts.
>
> You keep forgetting this.

On 2/23/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/23/22 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2022 6:52 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-23 13:57, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2022 1:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-23 08:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-22 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> <snippage
>>>
>>>>>> Because I formed this same view myself independently of
>>>>>> Wittgenstein I can say that his quoted words in my paper form a
>>>>>> 100% complete rebuttal that Gödel found a sentence that is both
>>>>>> true and unprovable. It is simply unprovable because it is untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is quite possible for two people to independently reach the same
>>>>> wrong conclusion. So the above hardly constitutes an argument.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is very easy to see that true and unprovable is impossible once
>>>> one comprehends the self evident truth regrading how analytic truth
>>>> itself actually works.
>>>
>>> Which 'self-evident truth' is that?
>>
>> The actual knowledge ontology structure of the body of analytic
>> knowledge.
>>
>>> Note that you have a bad track record of assuming that things which
>>> are demonstrably false are 'self-evidently true'.
>>>
>>
>> I do use some terminology somewhat inconsistently with its
>> conventional meaning to overcome [strong linguistic determinism] that
>> makes the ideas that I need to express otherwise inexpressible.
>
> Maybe you need to MISUSE terms because the ideas you have are not just
> otherwise inexpressible but actually IMPOSSIBLE (or incompatible with
> the field you are trying to work in).
>

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

<body of analytic truth>
It really is the case that an expression of language is only provable if
it can be derived by applying truth preserving operations to other
expressions of this same language.
</body of analytic truth>

It really is the case that an expression of language that is neither
provable nor refutable is not an element of the body of analytic truth.

>>
>> strong version, or linguistic determinism, says that language
>> determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine
>> cognitive categories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
>
> And maybe you should look at the fact that you can't use the terms
> correctly means that your world view doesn't match the reality of the
> field.
>
>>
>>> Note also that Gödel was not talking about analytic truth. He was
>>> talking about theories of arithmetic.
>>
>> The body of analytic truth encompasses all of mathematics and logic
>> and only excludes knowledge that can only be validated by input from
>> the sense organs.
>
> Then it needs to handle the fact that not all truths are provable.
>
> Otherwise, you need to PROVE your statement without assuming it.
>
> You still haven't answered the challenge of 3x+1, that one of the
> statements MUST be true, but neither might be provable.
>
>>
>>> The analytic/synthetic distinction is one made when discussing
>>> philosophy of language which deals with entirely different questions
>>> than arithmetic does.
>>>
>>
>> The notion of analytic truth is the foundation of all mathematics and
>> logic.
>
> No, the notion of analytic PROOF is the foundation of mathematics.
>
>>
>>> Different fields often use similar terms with subtly different
>>> meanings. You can't just assume that it is possible to import
>>> concepts from one field to another.
>>>
>>
>> If one field overloads the term "true" to include expressions of
>> language that are not true, then it errs.
>
> WRONG, if a field overloads the term True to exclude expressions that
> are clearly True, then it errs.
>
> You conflate True with Known.

If an expression of language in the body of analytic truth is true then
a proof of its truth exists even if this proof is currently unknown.

>>
>>>
>>>> Most people "know" that a statement is true on the basis that
>>>> someone that they trust told them this statement is true. Most
>>>> people here "know" that I must be wrong simply because they trust
>>>> that Gödel is correct.
>>>
>>> Or, more likely, because they actually read the proof (which you have
>>> admitted to not having done) and found it compelling.
>>>
>>
>> If its conclusion is incorrect then all of the steps can be ignored.
>
> No, if a conclusion SEEMS incorrect, you need to see how to actually
> disprove it, or YOU need to worry that you logic system has gone
> inconsistent (which I strongly suspect it has).
>

If a proof derives that conclusion that some dogs are cats then we can
ignore the steps and reject the proof. If a proof claims that there are
specific instances of analytic truths that cannot possibly be proven
this is the same as the prior example.

> If you claim the 'right' answer is to just ignore a seeming valid proof
> that you find goes against your believes, then by the logic, we can just
> say that YOUR theory is wrong and we get to just ignore you and just say
> you are wrong.
>

Any proof that does not apply truth preserving operations to expressions
of language deriving necessary consequences is incorrect.

I am reformulating logic so that it becomes perfectly and consistently a
system of correct reasoning.

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

On 2/24/2022 6:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/23/22 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> Yes it is yet it encompasses all of mathematics and logic.
>> It only excludes those things that rely on sense data from the sense
>> organs to be validated. All cats are animals is analytic. There is no
>> cat in my living room right now is synthetic.
>
> If it insists that All Truth is Provable, it does NOT. That is what
> Godel proved.

All Truth is provable his sentence simply was not true.

>
> Godel sentence is an actual Truth Bearing Statement, just like the pair
> of statements of the 3x+1 problem.
>
> Statement P must be True or it is False.

That is a false assumption.

> If statement P is True, then by
> its statement P is Unprovable, and thus no proof of it can exist.
>
> If Statement P is false, then its converse is true, that that means that
> P must be Provable. But it P is Provable, then either P must be True, or
> the logic system has gone inconsistent.
>
> Thus, we MUST conclude that P is unprovable, and thus some truths are
> not provable.
>

there is also a close relationship with the “liar” antinomy,14 ...
We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
unprovability.15 ...
14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof. (Gödel:1931:40)

These two self contradictory sentences are isomorphic:
This sentence is not true.
This sentence is not provable.

Gödel, Kurt 1931. On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia
Mathematica And Related Systems I, page 39-41.

https://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/pj2943kt/Fall%202015/Promotion%20Application/Previous%20Years%20Article%2022%20Materials/godel-1931.pdf

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moreover, it also doesn't follow from your above claim that "When
>>>>>>> you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations
>>>>>>> you always necessarily end up with truth." So you're basically
>>>>>>> presenting a non-sequitur.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something that 100% perfectly logically follows is utterly
>>>>>> ridiculously characterized as non-sequitur.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think the latter follows from the former you then you need a
>>>>> course in remedial logic.
>>>>
>>>> If you start with expressions of language that are known to be true
>>>> (such as Haskell Curry's elementary theorems) and only apply truth
>>>> preserving operations you don't end up with peanut butter.
>>>
>>> But you also do get you all Truths.
>>
>> You get the entire body of analytic truth.
>
> You still are missing the fact that while analysis can show you what is
> provable, and thus many things that are True, it has been shown that
> there exists Truths that can not be proven. And that Mathematics
> includes such Truths.
>

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

This is simply a misconception that comes from stripping semantics away
from classical and symbolic logic relative to Aristotle's syllogism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure

The above sentence defines the notion of incomplete never realizing that
some sentences are neither provable nor unprovable only because they are
self-contradictory.

there is also a close relationship with the “liar” antinomy,14 ...
We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
unprovability.15 ...
14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof. (Gödel:1931:40)

These two self contradictory sentences are isomorphic:
This sentence is not true.
This sentence is not provable.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  > in the same way that the following sentence is neither true
>>>>>>> nor false:
>>>>>>>  > "What time is it?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That sentence is not a proposition. Gödels paper is concerned
>>>>>>> with undecidable *propositions*. And it isn't concerned with
>>>>>>> natural language at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wanted to make a very clear example of an expression of language
>>>>>> that very obviously cannot be resolved to true or false. Example
>>>>>> form formal language that are not truth bearers are placed in the
>>>>>> incorrect category of undecidable.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no category in formal systems analogous to interrogatives.
>>>>
>>>> There is one yet not one that you are aware of.
>>>>
>>>> This is not my idea:
>>>> Questions are merely propositions with a missing piece.
>>>>
>>>>> You seem to not grasp the distinction between ontology and
>>>>> epistemology. Whether we can *determine* whether a statement is
>>>>> true or false is an epistemological issue which has no bearing at
>>>>> all on whether the statement actually *is* true or false.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In computer science and information science, an ontology encompasses
>>>> a representation, formal naming, and definition of the categories,
>>>> properties, and relations between the concepts, data, and entities
>>>> that substantiate one, many, or all domains of discourse.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
>>>>
>>>>>> Flibble is correct in that the reason these things are not
>>>>>> properly resolved is category error. When one assumes a
>>>>>> term-of-the-art definition that has hidden incoherence then these
>>>>>> terms-of-the-art make their own error inexpressible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The strong version, or linguistic determinism, says that language
>>>>>> determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and
>>>>>> determine cognitive categories.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
>>>>>
>>>>> Both a mischaracterization and utterly irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A theory T is incomplete if and only if there is some sentence φ
>>>> such that (T ⊬ φ) and (T ⊬ ¬φ).
>>>>
>>>> The above simply ignores the case where a syntactically correct
>>>> expression of a formal language is unprovable simply because at the
>>>> semantic level it is self-contradictory.
>>>
>>> Except the problem in question is NOT self-contradictory, which you
>>> don't understand.
>>>
>>
>> "This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet this does not make
>> it true because it is self-contradictory.
>
> But that is NOT the Godel Sentence.

Gödel says that it is close enough:

there is also a close relationship with the “liar” antinomy,14 ...
We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
unprovability.15 ...
14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof. (Gödel:1931:40)

He also says that even the liar paradox derives his same results.

>>
>> "This sentence is not provable" is indeed not provable yet this does
>> not make it provable because it is self-contradictory.
>
> It is NOT self-contradictory unless you have mistakenly assumed that
> Truth is Provable. That is your flaw.
>

In the entire body of analytic body of analytic truth we only know that
an expression of language is true:
(1) Like Curry elementary theorems it is stipulated to be true.
(2) It is derived by applying truth preserving operations of (1) or (2).

Try and find any natural language exception to this rule.
A cat is an animal because this relation is stipulated to be true.
A dog is not a cat because it has properties that cats do not have.

> Yes, if you start with an assumption that Truth must be provable, then
> you can say that the sentence is not a Truth Bearer, but then you also
> can not express the whole of mathematics in a consistent logic system.

Actually you would have corrected the erroneous divergence of classical
logic and symbolic logic from correct reasoning.

On 2/24/2022 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/23/22 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>>> Then Analytic Truth is a sub-set of Truth. Just like the set of black
>>> cats doesn't contain all cats.
>>>
>>
>> Yes it is yet it encompasses all of mathematics and logic.
>
> As I think back, I now remember on key fact that you are missing.
> Analytic Truth requires Proof in a Finite (or sometimes Enumerable)
> number of proof steps.
>

The body of analytic truth is simply a set of true sentences that are
connected together semantically.

> Mathematics introduces the concept of UnEnumeratable sets and this is
> what breaks the concept of Truth must be Provable. Some things can be
> shown true only by a 'meta-analysis' that looks at an uncountable number
> of Proof Steps, which Analytic Truth can not handle, thus it can
> establish facts that are not Analytically provable.
>

This merely requires algorithmic compression. We can know that there is
no maximum integer without having to actually count to infinity.

> This also shows where you logic breaks down, you have show an inability
> to actually think about things that can become infinite. The problem
> with you H is that it actually needs infinite time to make a valid
> decision, but it needs to make it in a finite time, and thus it fails.
>

That makes the utterly moronic assumption that the most intelligent and
knowledgeable person in the universe could not possibly spot the
infinite loop in the code shown below in less then infinite time:

_Infinite_Loop()
[00000946](01) 55 push ebp
[00000947](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000949](02) ebfe jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
[0000094b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000094c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]

> It needs to find a value N that is greater than N + k where k > 0, and
> just assumes it can find one, when it doesn't exist.
>
> Missing out on the details of the infinite leads to Fallacious and
> Invalid Logic, so your proof just FAILS.
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 2/23/2022 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/23/22 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2022 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/23/22 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2022 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/22 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/22 6:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages with this in the header that will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the aioe.org NNTP server and not to any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't remember who) already pointed out this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error to you when you were claiming the poster
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in question was from Germany. That's like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assuming that someone must be from Mountain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as possibly false until independently confirmed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is how first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways to reverse-engineer complicated problems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and unleash creative possibility. Sometimes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called “reasoning from first principles,” the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea is to break down complicated problems into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic elements and then reassemble them from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they do not correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because I have corrected the errors in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical underpinnings of this conventional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wisdom. People acting like sheep say that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong because they are attached to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they have is gibberish double talk anchored in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that they simply do not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't conform to the RULES of the field. They just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not truths, as truths by definition, conform to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality, and in a logical field, that includes its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules and definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with themselves then this inconsistency cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored and must be resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Gibberish', they are pointing out that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BREAKING THE RULES of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeating pattern can be recognized by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even though you yourself already acknowledged that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is an infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not it is aborted because halting is required to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach a final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countless times you must either be a liar or have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual brain damage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state because you give up when your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine aborts it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can't possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>> because it is infinitely recursive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then H can't have aborted its simulation, so it didn't
>>>>>>>>>>> answer, and it FAILED.
>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
>>>>>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This doesn't present the pattern you just claim, so you just
>>>>>>>>> committed that fallacy of the Red Herring.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you can't tell that the above is very obviously an infinite
>>>>>>>> loop you are far too ignorant to have any chance of providing
>>>>>>>> anything close to an accurate review of my work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You keep up that Fallacious And Invalid Logic and some day
>>>>>>> someone might beleive you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I NEVER said that it is impossible to detect SOME infinite loops.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I said that H can't correctly detect an infinite loop in H^ and
>>>>>>> abort its simulation to report it, because in doing so H breaks
>>>>>>> the loop so it doesn't exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is freaking nuts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just like a compiler that stops compiling when there are compile
>>>>>> errors
>>>>>> a halt decider stops simulating when there are infinite execution
>>>>>> errors. You can't be that stupid so you must be a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your problem is you just don't understand what a Turing Machine is.
>>>>>
>>>>> H only partially simulates what the machine does.
>>>>
>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulates its input until it proves that this
>>>> input cannot possibly reach its final state.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which it can only do if it NEVER aborts, because if embedded_H (and
>>> thus H) goes to H.Qn then H^ also goes to H^.Qn and Halts.
>>>
>>> You keep forgetting this.
>>
>> I really don't have any black cats in my living room.
>> Sure you do I can prove that you have a white dog in your kitchen.
>>
>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn has nothing to do with the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ going to
>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>
> Then you aren't working on the Halting problem and are just a
> pathological liar.
>
>
>>
>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ directly depends on embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ terminating its simulation.

On 2/23/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/23/22 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2022 6:52 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-23 13:57, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2022 1:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-23 08:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-22 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> <snippage
>>>
>>>>>> Because I formed this same view myself independently of
>>>>>> Wittgenstein I can say that his quoted words in my paper form a
>>>>>> 100% complete rebuttal that Gödel found a sentence that is both
>>>>>> true and unprovable. It is simply unprovable because it is untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is quite possible for two people to independently reach the same
>>>>> wrong conclusion. So the above hardly constitutes an argument.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is very easy to see that true and unprovable is impossible once
>>>> one comprehends the self evident truth regrading how analytic truth
>>>> itself actually works.
>>>
>>> Which 'self-evident truth' is that?
>>
>> The actual knowledge ontology structure of the body of analytic
>> knowledge.
>>
>>> Note that you have a bad track record of assuming that things which
>>> are demonstrably false are 'self-evidently true'.
>>>
>>
>> I do use some terminology somewhat inconsistently with its
>> conventional meaning to overcome [strong linguistic determinism] that
>> makes the ideas that I need to express otherwise inexpressible.
>
> Maybe you need to MISUSE terms because the ideas you have are not just
> otherwise inexpressible but actually IMPOSSIBLE (or incompatible with
> the field you are trying to work in).
>
>>
>> strong version, or linguistic determinism, says that language
>> determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine
>> cognitive categories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
>
> And maybe you should look at the fact that you can't use the terms
> correctly means that your world view doesn't match the reality of the
> field.
>
>>
>>> Note also that Gödel was not talking about analytic truth. He was
>>> talking about theories of arithmetic.
>>
>> The body of analytic truth encompasses all of mathematics and logic
>> and only excludes knowledge that can only be validated by input from
>> the sense organs.
>
> Then it needs to handle the fact that not all truths are provable.
>
> Otherwise, you need to PROVE your statement without assuming it.
>
> You still haven't answered the challenge of 3x+1, that one of the
> statements MUST be true, but neither might be provable.
>
>>
>>> The analytic/synthetic distinction is one made when discussing
>>> philosophy of language which deals with entirely different questions
>>> than arithmetic does.
>>>
>>
>> The notion of analytic truth is the foundation of all mathematics and
>> logic.
>
> No, the notion of analytic PROOF is the foundation of mathematics.
>
>>
>>> Different fields often use similar terms with subtly different
>>> meanings. You can't just assume that it is possible to import
>>> concepts from one field to another.
>>>
>>
>> If one field overloads the term "true" to include expressions of
>> language that are not true, then it errs.
>
> WRONG, if a field overloads the term True to exclude expressions that
> are clearly True, then it errs.
>
> You conflate True with Known.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Most people "know" that a statement is true on the basis that
>>>> someone that they trust told them this statement is true. Most
>>>> people here "know" that I must be wrong simply because they trust
>>>> that Gödel is correct.
>>>
>>> Or, more likely, because they actually read the proof (which you have
>>> admitted to not having done) and found it compelling.
>>>
>>
>> If its conclusion is incorrect then all of the steps can be ignored.
>
> No, if a conclusion SEEMS incorrect, you need to see how to actually
> disprove it, or YOU need to worry that you logic system has gone
> inconsistent (which I strongly suspect it has).
>
> If you claim the 'right' answer is to just ignore a seeming valid proof
> that you find goes against your believes, then by the logic, we can just
> say that YOUR theory is wrong and we get to just ignore you and just say
> you are wrong.
>
> Do you agree to that?
>
>>
>>>>>>> What you are really saying is that you formed some view and then
>>>>>>> interpreted one of Wittgenstein's remarks in terms of that view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note that Haskell Curry is quoted before Wittgenstein has a
>>>>>>>> comparable notion of what "true in a formal system" means.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let 𝓣 be such a theory. Then the elementary statements which
>>>>>>>> belong to 𝓣 we shall call the elementary theorems of 𝓣; we
>>>>>>>> also say that these elementary statements are true for 𝓣. Thus,
>>>>>>>> given 𝓣, an elementary theorem is an elementary statement which
>>>>>>>> is true...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Olcott's true in a formal system 𝓣 is exactly Curry's
>>>>>>>> elementary theorems of 𝓣 and statements of 𝓣 derived by
>>>>>>>> applying truth preserving operations beginning with Curry's
>>>>>>>> elementary theorems of 𝓣 as premises.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving
>>>>>>>> operations you always necessarily end up with truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Gödel, since his theorem
>>>>>>> was not concerned with truth and made no mention of truth at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has everything to do with all undecidable propositions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Undecidable propositions are simply not truth bearers
>>>>>
>>>>> The above claim is simply false. It is not consistent with the
>>>>> standard definitions of 'undecidable' and 'truth bearer'.
>>>>
>>>> It is consistent with the way that <truth> really works, thus
>>>> superseding and overriding all of the misconceptions that seem to
>>>> contradict it.
>>>
>>> I have no reason to believe that you have any understanding of how
>>> truth 'really works'.
>>>
>>
>> Analytic truth is nothing more that a semantically connected set of
>> expressions of language each one known to be true.
>
> Then Analytic Truth is a sub-set of Truth. Just like the set of black
> cats doesn't contain all cats.
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Moreover, it also doesn't follow from your above claim that "When
>>>>> you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations you
>>>>> always necessarily end up with truth." So you're basically
>>>>> presenting a non-sequitur.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Something that 100% perfectly logically follows is utterly
>>>> ridiculously characterized as non-sequitur.
>>>
>>> If you think the latter follows from the former you then you need a
>>> course in remedial logic.
>>
>> If you start with expressions of language that are known to be true
>> (such as Haskell Curry's elementary theorems) and only apply truth
>> preserving operations you don't end up with peanut butter.
>
> But you also do get you all Truths.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>  > in the same way that the following sentence is neither true nor
>>>>> false:
>>>>>  > "What time is it?"
>>>>>
>>>>> That sentence is not a proposition. Gödels paper is concerned with
>>>>> undecidable *propositions*. And it isn't concerned with natural
>>>>> language at all.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wanted to make a very clear example of an expression of language
>>>> that very obviously cannot be resolved to true or false. Example
>>>> form formal language that are not truth bearers are placed in the
>>>> incorrect category of undecidable.
>>>
>>> There is no category in formal systems analogous to interrogatives.
>>
>> There is one yet not one that you are aware of.
>>
>> This is not my idea:
>> Questions are merely propositions with a missing piece.
>>
>>> You seem to not grasp the distinction between ontology and
>>> epistemology. Whether we can *determine* whether a statement is true
>>> or false is an epistemological issue which has no bearing at all on
>>> whether the statement actually *is* true or false.
>>>
>>
>> In computer science and information science, an ontology encompasses a
>> representation, formal naming, and definition of the categories,
>> properties, and relations between the concepts, data, and entities
>> that substantiate one, many, or all domains of discourse.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
>>
>>>> Flibble is correct in that the reason these things are not properly
>>>> resolved is category error. When one assumes a term-of-the-art
>>>> definition that has hidden incoherence then these terms-of-the-art
>>>> make their own error inexpressible.
>>>>
>>>> The strong version, or linguistic determinism, says that language
>>>> determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and
>>>> determine cognitive categories.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
>>>
>>> Both a mischaracterization and utterly irrelevant.
>>>
>>
>> A theory T is incomplete if and only if there is some sentence φ such
>> that (T ⊬ φ) and (T ⊬ ¬φ).
>>
>> The above simply ignores the case where a syntactically correct
>> expression of a formal language is unprovable simply because at the
>> semantic level it is self-contradictory.
>
> Except the problem in question is NOT self-contradictory, which you
> don't understand.
>
> Halting( H^ applied to <H^>) HAS a correct answer, so the question is
> NOT self-contradictory.
>
> H just can't give that answer, because it uses a copy of H.
>
>>
>>>>>> All expressions of formal or natural language that apply only
>>>>>> truth preserving operations beginning with a set of premises known
>>>>>> to be true (such as Haskell Curry's elementary theorems) are
>>>>>> sound, else unsound.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh dear. You really are confused. You're making numerous category
>>>>> errors above. Soundness is not a property of arguments, not
>>>>> propositions (which is what Gödel is concerned with).
>>>>
>>>> I will use more generic language that has not been overridden
>>>> idiomatic terms-of-the-art meanings.
>>>>
>>>> expressions of language that were derived by applying truth
>>>> preserving operations to expressions of language known to be true
>>>> necessarily derive true expressions of language.
>>>>
>>>>> And 'expressions of formal or natural language' don't 'apply truth
>>>>> preserving operations'.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I have a cat then I have an animal applies the truth preserving
>>>> operation Is-A-Type_Of(cat, animal) on the basis of a knowledge
>>>> ontology that specifies all of the general knowledge.
>>>>
>>>>>> All expressions of formal or natural language that apply only
>>>>>> truth preserving operations beginning with a set of premises are
>>>>>> valid, else invalid.
>>>>>
>>>>> That sentence is incoherent.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If one applies only truth preserving operations to a set of true
>>>> expressions of language then true expressions of language are derived.
>>>
>>> If one starts with true premises and uses valid deductive rules one
>>> is guaranteed to arrive at true conclusions. That does *NOT* entail
>>> that every true statement can be derived from some set of axioms
>>> using valid deductive rules.
>>>
>>
>> For the body of analytic knowledge that includes all of mathematics
>> and logic an expression of language is true if:
>> (1) It is stipulated to be true like Curry's elementary theorems
>> (2) It is derived from applying truth preserving operations to (1) or
>> (2).
>
> Nope, you are PRESUMING a wrong definition of True. You are stating was
> is PROVABLE or KNOWN, not what is True.
>
> Yes, items that are True but unproven are not part of the Body of
> analytic knowledge, but knowledge is NOT a limitation of Truth.
>
>>
>>>> If one applies only truth preserving operations to a set of
>>>> expressions of language then logically entailed expressions of
>>>> language are derived.
>>>>
>>>>>> valid reasoning requires conclusions to be a necessary consequence
>>>>>> of the premises.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is not contradicted by Gödel. He would agree with this.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>
>>>> The key mistake is that he believes that his sentence is true and
>>>> unprovable which is analogous to a purebred cat that is a kind of dog.
>>>
>>> Gödel makes no claims at all about the truth or falsehood of Gödel
>>> sentences.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> He says that it is true that G is unprovable. The only way that we can
>> know that G is unprovable is by a proof that G is unprovable, hence
>> proving that G is provable.
>>
>
> Nope, you make the mistake that we need to KNOW something for it to be
> True.
>
> Again, one of the statements about the 3*x+1 sequence is true, by
> definition, but we have not proven it. Thus while we don't know the
> answer, we know that one of the sentence MUST be True, thus we know the
> existance of a set of sentences, one of which MUST be true, but none of
> which are proven.
>
> THAT is a piece of Knowledge.

On 2/24/2022 10:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/22 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2022 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/23/22 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Then Analytic Truth is a sub-set of Truth. Just like the set of
>>>>> black cats doesn't contain all cats.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is yet it encompasses all of mathematics and logic.
>>>
>>> As I think back, I now remember on key fact that you are missing.
>>> Analytic Truth requires Proof in a Finite (or sometimes Enumerable)
>>> number of proof steps.
>>>
>>
>> The body of analytic truth is simply a set of true sentences that are
>> connected together semantically.
>>
>>> Mathematics introduces the concept of UnEnumeratable sets and this is
>>> what breaks the concept of Truth must be Provable. Some things can be
>>> shown true only by a 'meta-analysis' that looks at an uncountable
>>> number of Proof Steps, which Analytic Truth can not handle, thus it
>>> can establish facts that are not Analytically provable.
>>>
>>
>> This merely requires algorithmic compression. We can know that there
>> is no maximum integer without having to actually count to infinity.
>
> But you can't compress ALL things. Your assupmtion that you can is a
> fallacy. For instance, you assume there must be a finite pattern that H
> can detect in its simulation of <H^> <H^> that correctly indicates that
> the pattern will repeat forever, when I have shown that no such pattern
> exists, as ANY pattern of N steps that H uses and then goes to H.Qn
> means that there IS a number K > N such that H^ applied to <H^> halts in
> K steps, thus H was wrong.
>
>>
>>> This also shows where you logic breaks down, you have show an
>>> inability to actually think about things that can become infinite.
>>> The problem with you H is that it actually needs infinite time to
>>> make a valid decision, but it needs to make it in a finite time, and
>>> thus it fails.
>>>
>>
>> That makes the utterly moronic assumption that the most intelligent
>> and knowledgeable person in the universe could not possibly spot the
>> infinite loop in the code shown below in less then infinite time:
>>
>> _Infinite_Loop()
>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949 ; right here nitwit
>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>
>>
>
> Fallacy of proof by example. FAIL.
>
> That pattern is NOT in H^ applied to <H^>.
>
> I never claimed that H couldn't detect SOME infinite loops,

You claimed that H could not correctly report that the above is an in
finite loop because if H stops simulating it then it is no longer an
infinite loop.

> just that it
> can not detect an actual infinite loop in H^ applied to <H^> and go to
> H.Qn (for H^ built on that H).
>
>>
>>> It needs to find a value N that is greater than N + k where k > 0,
>>> and just assumes it can find one, when it doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> Missing out on the details of the infinite leads to Fallacious and
>>> Invalid Logic, so your proof just FAILS.
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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