On 2/18/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/18/22 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/18/2022 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/18/22 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/2022 3:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/18/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal and not the windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have proven something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to agree with you, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your heart, which is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that don't require peer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where this input halts on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of H" or H will never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H <H"> we see that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have said that H has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input and goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to H.Qn for this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple running opf H" applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shown that BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H".Qn and Halt, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand anything about formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a counter example means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsond logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the words' and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions being used to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments, but only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have revealed that you goal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological statement, which isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophy, so if that is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have a background to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to do to show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly don't undstand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Propositions, the idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cancer with little time left. I intend my HP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-reference of the halting problem proofs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why you would be reversing course now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegitimate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking for support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theorem down to a single simple sentence. Try and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find a single error of substance in my paper:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take a moron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion as a premise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Truth can only be something that is proven,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then from that try to prove that Truth is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something that csn be proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, in mathematics, there are a number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements that must either be True of False, there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no possible middle ground, but these statements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have not been shown to be provable or disprovable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every expression of language does not count as true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until after it has been proven. There are only two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways to determine if an analytical expression of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language is true. It is an axiom that assigned the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of Boolean true. It is derived by sound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deduction that is ultimately anchored in axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to assume.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Analytical expressions of language are verified to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true entirely on the basis of their meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. Formal;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> geometry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that a cat is the windows of an office building you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are simply wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something already defined in the system, especially to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something wrong. That violates the rules of Formal Logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) That is already what analytical truth means:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of their meaning"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC.
>>>>>>>>>>>> logic is a branch of philosophy
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But is a different branch than your Epistemology with
>>>>>>>>>>> different rules. Formal Logic, which mathematics uses defines
>>>>>>>>>>> things differently than what you want to use.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes and when formal logic diverges from applying truth
>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to premises that are known to be true
>>>>>>>>>> (sound deductive inference) on the basis of the semantic
>>>>>>>>>> relevance that is maintained in the syllogism:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
>>>>>>>>>> then formal logic errs and diverges from truth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Logical entailment does not require premises to be true yet
>>>>>>>>>> still requires true preserving operations to be applied on the
>>>>>>>>>> basis of semantic relevance.
>>>>>>>>>> Which just says that YOU don't agree with what the whole world
>>>>>>>>>> agrees is
>>>>>>>>> the truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Find, you are on your own.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Things an ignoramus would say:
>>>>>>>>> YOU have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding the
>>>>>>>>> basic principles of Formal Logic, and are thus unqualified to
>>>>>>>>> discuss it.
>>>>>>>> When everything that you learn you learn by only rote
>>>>>>>> understanding cannot possibly get any more shallow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am discussing the philosophical underpinnings upon which
>>>>>>>> correct reasoning is based.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you are doing it at the wrong place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you disagree with the fundamental logic underpinnings of all
>>>>>>> of Formal Logic, you don't start in a peripheral field. That is
>>>>>>> useless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Philosophical foundationalism is the ultimate basis and
>>>>>> ground-of-being of correct reasoning and logic, thus 100% directly
>>>>>> opposite of peripheral. It cannot possibly be any less peripheral.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't read very well I see. I wasn't calling the logic
>>>>> underpinnings peripheral, I was calling Computation Theory
>>>>> peripheral. If you want to challenge the definition of Truth used
>>>>> in Formal Logic, you don't work in a peripheral field, which CAN'T
>>>>> change the definition of Truth it uses, because it has inhereted it
>>>>> from its
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (a) The halting problem proofs,
>>>> (b) Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorem,
>>>> (c) The Tarski Undefinability theorem and
>>>> (d) The liar paradox
>>>> all suffer from the same foundational error.
>>>
>>> I will point out that the liar's paradox is a completely DIFFERENT
>>> sort of issue,
>>>
>>>>
>>>> When analytical truth is understood to be connected sets of true
>>>> statements that necessarily derive true conclusions then all four of
>>>> the above examples lose their basis and cease to exist.
>>>
>>> Except that it doesn't. Formal Logic IS built on the concept that you
>>> can only prove a conclusion from True Premises.
>>>
>>> What is isn't built on that Truth has to be proven. Something can be
>>> True even if not proven, but if you can't prove it to be true, you
>>> can't use it for the basis of a further proof.
>>>
>>
>> Within the body of analytic knowledge an expression of language is
>> only true when a connected set of true expressions prove that it is
>> true, thus true and unprovable cannot possibly co-exist.
>
> Then the body of analytic knowledge (or at least your interpreation of
> it) can't deal with the body of knowledge of Mathematics, (and related
> logic families) as they allow for a statement to be True without needing
> to be connected to a proof. PERIOD.
Lets proceed from here. How do we know that a mathematical expression is
true aside from its proof that it is true?

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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