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

That no proof is currently known to exist is not at all the same thing
as no proof can possibly exist because the expression of language is
self-contradictory.

Every element of the entire set of analytical truth is only true because
(as explained above) it is a part of a mutually self-defining
interlocking semantic tautology.

The former is a truth bearer with an unknown truth value and the latter
is not a truth bearer at all.

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