On 2/18/2022 5:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/18/22 6:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>
> We don't. But we might know that it is True or False, and can bifurcate
> on that knowledge.

Yet the Gödel sentence proposed to be true and unprovable.
That cannot possibly be. If it is true then it is provably true
otherwise it is untrue (not the same as false).

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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