On 5/18/22 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/18/2022 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/18/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/18/2022 7:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/17/22 11:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/15/2022 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/22 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mathematics (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts
>>>>>>>>>>>> and London, England: The MIT Press
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's
>>>>>>>>>>> paper at this point either, so he makes the same error you do
>>>>>>>>>>> of know knowing what he is talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his
>>>>>>>>>> initial reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a
>>>>>>>>>> private journal which was never intended for publication
>>>>>>>>>> (which explains why he never bothered to retract this remark
>>>>>>>>>> once the error became clear to him).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been
>>>>>>>>>> pointed out to him repeatedly.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some of these terms are from standard analytic philosophy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Proofs over infinite sets can be tricky.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> KEY_INSIGHT:
>>>>>>> (a) The proof is that the entire body of analytic knowledge
>>>>>>> (including all math, logic, et cetera) is structured as semantic
>>>>>>> connections between elements of this same body.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (b) All analytic expressions of language only obtain their
>>>>>>> meaning through semantic connections.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The proof of these two is that no counter-examples can be found*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which PROVES that you don't know the meaning of the word PROOF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Proof generically means that an expression of language has been
>>>>> definitely established as true by some means.
>>>>>
>>>>>> By that standard, Collatz, and the Twin Primes, amoung many
>>>>>> others, are PROVED.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> STANDARD_MEANING:
>>>>>>> (c) Analytic expressions of language are only true on the basis
>>>>>>> of their meaning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Source? That actually mean True, as opossed to just "Known True".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is the definition of analytic truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
>>>>> historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of
>>>>> the meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so
>>>>> solely by knowing those meanings.
>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>>>>
>>>> Note "Historically", that was what was assumed to be a
>>>> characteristic of such statements, that they could be shown true or
>>>> false by a manner of proof.
>>>>
>>>> Then, we got the proof that some statements, that might want to be
>>>> called analytic couldn't be proven or disproven.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no freaking "might want" there is only <is> and <not is>.
>>> If you "might want the definitions of a term to be different than it
>>> is then you are simply screwy.
>>
>> A century ago, Math was thought to be Analytical, and all Analytical
>> statements eventually provable or refutable. It was then discovered
>> that this can not be true.
>>
>
> Math a stipulated to be in the body of analytical statements the same
> way that a dog is stipulated to be an animal.

Then you have to accept that some Analytical Statements are True but not
Provable,

>
>> You need to decide, either you remove Mathematics from Analytical or
>> you remove Provable from Analytically True.
>>
>
> Not at all. This is where logic diverges form correct reasoning.
> Cannot possibly be proved = untrue.

I think all you have done is proved that your "Correct Reasoning" is
incorrect.

>
>>>
>>>> As pointed out, in part, the question is "Is Mathematics Analytic",
>>>> or is it more emperical.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is stipulated that math and logic are purely analytical.
>>
>> Then there exists analytical statements that are True but not Provable.
>>
>> That is PROVEN.
>
> Unprovable in F means untrue in F.
> Remove the self-contradiction then we get provable and true.

Nope, not if F can support enough Mathematics.

Your logic system is obviously now inconsistent.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> Can "The Square of the Hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares
>>>> of the other two sides", be actually thought of as a ANALYTIC proof,
>>>> doesn't it truth come out of the MEANING of the words, or is it an
>>>> emperical truth show to be true because it just works.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Empirical means that you must be able to taste, touch, smell, or hear
>>> it.
>>
>> Then read section 2.1, Mathematics, by "Thought" can "verify" concepts
>> in the domain that can not be "Proven" by mean analytic proof.
>
> If math contradicts its philosophical foundation then math is wrong.

Go ahead, announce you new logic idea, and point out that to accept it
you need to throw out the centuries of development of mathematics
because it must all be wrong.

I think you may be able to hear the crickets after that.

>
>>
>> You either need to consider that "Thought" as a sense, or admit that
>> not all Analytic Statements are provable.
>>
>
> In the same way I will take my pet office building for a walk.

Yes, do that, it makes as much sense as your other statements.

>
>>>
>>>> Once you do that, then all the pesky mathematical problems disapper
>>>> to analytics, because they have been moved outside the domain.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ∴ True(x) only exists on the basis of the semantic connections
>>>>>>> that x has or fails to have. This is another way of saying the
>>>>>>> True(x) is based on Provable(x) as these semantic connections are
>>>>>>> verified or fail verification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unproven, and thus by its own definition, not True, and ANY
>>>>>> arguement based on it becomes UNSOND.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that we agree on this.
>>>>
>>>> So, you agree that your statement is UNSOUND?
>>>
>>> Unproven means unsound. Sound requires proven.
>>
>> You just showed that you don't know the meaning.
>>
>
> Validity and Soundness
> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form
> that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion
> nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be
> invalid.
>
> A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all
> of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is
> unsound.
> https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>
> Deductive inference is a kind of proof.

So, How is "Unproven" the same an "Unsound"?

You are making a category error.

UNSOUND is a property of an ARGUEMENT.

PROVEN/UNPROVEN is a propery of a statement/preposition.

>
>> CLAIMING something to be True without proof is Unsound, but an
>> Unproven fact is mearly unknown.
>>
>
> impossisble to prove = untrue.

PROVE IT.

If you can't, your statement is UNTRUE.

I have asked you several times this question. I will take you lack of
presenting an actual proof as evidence that you don't have one, and thus
your repeaating of that statement is just you claiming something, that
by your own rules is untrue, which make you an admitted LIAR.

>
>
>> The Collbatz conjuecture is Unknown as to its Truth, but we KNOW that
>> it must be either True of False.
>>
>> The Collbatz Conjecture is NOT "Unsound", because it doesn't assert
>> that it IS true, just believed to be.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (Untrue(F, G) and Untrue(F, ~G)) means ~Truth_Bearer(G).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the logics which Gödel is considering all include the law of
>>>>>>>> the excluded middle. There is no 'untrue' in these systems; only
>>>>>>>> true and false.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>