On 5/1/22 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/1/22 10:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2022 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/1/22 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/2022 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/1/22 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/1/22 6:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 5:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/22 6:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 3:51 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 14:42, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 3:37 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 14:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:54 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:48, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 2:22 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-01 13:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 1:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which categories are you claiming are involved?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claiming something is a 'category error' means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing if you don't specify the actual categories
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My original thinking was that (1) and (2) and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar Paradox all demonstrate the exact same error.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only have considered (3) in recent years, prior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to that I never heard of (3).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The category error would be that none of them is in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the category of truth bearers. For Gödel's G and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski's p it would mean that the category error is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that G and p are not logic sentences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And how can you possibly justify your claim that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel's G is not a truth bearer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do I have to say the same thing 500 times before you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bother to notice that I said it once?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used for a similar undecidability proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore LP ↔ ~True(LP) can be used for a similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidability proof, and LP ↔ ~True(LP) is clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically ill-formed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false. // false means semantically ill-formed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what does any of the above have to do with what I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state below? That's your faulty attempt at expressing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Liar in Prolog, which has nothing to do with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel's G. G has *a relationship* to The Liar, but G
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is *very* different from The Liar in crucial ways.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidability proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therfore the liar paradox can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidability proof, nitwit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would not call you a nitwit except that you so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistently make sure to ignore my key points, thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably making you a jackass rather than a nitwit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again, you snipped all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> God damned attempt to get away with the dishonest dodge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the strawman error.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you not know what the word "every" means?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand the difference between 'close
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship' and 'the same'?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You freaking dishonest bastard
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The only one being dishonest here is you as you keep
>>>>>>>>>>>> snipping the substance of my post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel claims there is a *close relationship* between The
>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar and G. He most certainly does *not* claim that they are
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same. (That one can construct similar proofs which bear
>>>>>>>>>>>> a similar close relationship to other antinomies is hardly
>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant since it is The Liar which is under discussion).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are two crucial differences between G and The Liar:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) G does *not* assert its own unprovability whereas The
>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar *does* assert its own falsity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) G is most definitely a truth-bearer even if The Liar is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your claim the Gödel's theorem is a 'category error' is
>>>>>>>>>>>> predicated on the fact that you don't grasp (b) above. I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>> not going to retype my explanation for this as I have
>>>>>>>>>>>> already given it in a previous post. You're more than
>>>>>>>>>>>> welcome to go back and read that post. Unless you actually
>>>>>>>>>>>> have some comment on that explanation, there's no point
>>>>>>>>>>>> repeating yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and the Liar Paradox is and is an epistemological antinomy
>>>>>>>>>>> you lying bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, there is a difference between being used for and being
>>>>>>>>>> just like.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sufficiently equivalent
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can PROVE it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I backed André into a corner and forced him to quit lying
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, No. Note a trimming to change meaning, the original was:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and the Liar Paradox is and is an epistemological antinomy you
>>>>>>>>>> lying bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, there is a difference between being used for and being just
>>>>>>>>> like.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sufficiently equivalent
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can PROVE it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, clearly the requested proof was that about USING the
>>>>>> epistemolgocal antinomy and it being just like one so not a Truth
>>>>>> Bearer. Note, the comment that you claimed you backed him into
>>>>>> isn't about that, so you are just proving yourself to be a deciver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/1/2022 6:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>  > Yes. The Liar and the Liar can be used for similar undecidability
>>>>>>>  > proofs. I have no idea what it is you hope to achieve by
>>>>>>> arguing for a
>>>>>>>  > truism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice out of context quoting, showing again you are the deciver.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you look at the full context of many messages you will see that
>>>>> he kept continuing to deny that the Liar Paradox can be used for
>>>>> similar undecidability proofs at least a half dozen times. Only
>>>>> when I made denying this look utterly ridiculously foolish did he
>>>>> finally quit lying about it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, he says that the use of the Liar Paradox in the form that Godel
>>>> does doesn't make the Godel Sentence a non-truth holder.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you look at the actual facts you will see that he continued to
>>> deny that kept continuing to deny that the Liar Paradox can be used
>>> for similar undecidability proofs at least a half dozen times.
>>>
>>> If you make sure to knowingly contradict the verified facts then
>>> Revelations 21:8 may eventually apply to you.
>>>
>>
>> You mean like when he said (and you snipped):
>>
>>>
>>> The only one being dishonest here is you as you keep snipping the
>>> substance of my post.
>>>
>>> Gödel claims there is a *close relationship* between The Liar and G.
>>> He most certainly does *not* claim that they are the same. (That one
>>> can construct similar proofs which bear a similar close relationship
>>> to other antinomies is hardly relevant since it is The Liar which is
>>> under discussion).
>>>
>>> There are two crucial differences between G and The Liar:
>>>
>>> (a) G does *not* assert its own unprovability whereas The Liar *does*
>>> assert its own falsity.
>>>
>>> (b) G is most definitely a truth-bearer even if The Liar is not.
>>>
>>> Your claim the Gödel's theorem is a 'category error' is predicated on
>>> the fact that you don't grasp (b) above. I'm not going to retype my
>>> explanation for this as I have already given it in a previous post.
>>> You're more than welcome to go back and read that post. Unless you
>>> actually have some comment on that explanation, there's no point
>>> repeating yourself.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe you should check your OWN facts.
>>
>
> He is focusing on the dishonest dodge of the strawman error by making
> sure to ignore that in another quote Gödel said that Gödel's G is
> sufficiently equivalent to the Liar Paradox on the basis that the Liar
> Paradox is an epistemological antinomy, whereas the quote he keeps
> switching back to is less clear on this point.
>
> Since I focused on correcting his mistake several times it finally got
> down to the point where it was clear that he was a lying bastard.
>
> I am utterly immune to gas lighting.
>
>> He is CLEARLY not saying that the Liar Paradox can't be used for this
>> sort of proof, because he talks about its form being used.
>>
>
> He continued to refer to the other quote of Gödel that is much more
> vague on the equivalence between Gödel's G as his basis that equivalence
> cannot be be determined even when I kept focusing him back on the quote
> that does assert sufficient equivalence exists. I did this six times.
>
> At this point my assessment that he was a lying bastard was sufficiently
> validated.
>
> Are you a lying bastard too, or will you acknowledge that my assessment
> is correct?
>

I will acknowledge that you have proven yourself to be the lying bastard.

YOU have REPEADTEDLY trimmed out important parts of the conversation
either to INTENTIONALLY be deceptive, or because you are so incompetent
at this material that you don't know what is important.

You see words which are not there and don't see the words that are there.

Godel talks of a way to use the form of any epistemological antinomy to
build a similar argument to his G.

I think one thing that maybe you don't understand about G and the Liar
Paradox is that this G IS built on the Liar Paradox so I think part of
your issue is that you are trying to argue about the possibility to make
a different G but from the Liar's Paradox, when this one was. The fact
you don't see that G, as is, as being based on the Liar's Paradox, means
you don't understand the way it is actually formed on the Liar's paradox.

>> What he is denying, that seems beyound your ability to understand, so
>> much so tha that you remove it from your messages, that this fact
>> doesn't make the G itself a "Liar Paradox" that isn't a Truth Bearing
>> like you claim.
>>
>> Maybe YOU should be looking at the actual facts of who said what, and
>> see who is guilty of lying.
>>
>> I think you are getting very close to that Lake of Fire.
>>
>>>
>>>> The fact that you have mis-interpreted him that many times, and even
>>>> snipped out his explanations shows you ignrance and lack of
>>>> scruples. You show a marked propensity to (apparently) intentionally
>>>> twist the words of others to match the script you are trying to write.
>>>>
>>>> You are just solidifying your place in history as someone who does
>>>> NOT understand the basics of the field they are making grand claims
>>>> in, who does NOT understand the basics of logic, and who is just a
>>>> pathological liar that doesn't understand the first thing about truth.
>>>>
>>>> In the past, I thought that maybe some of your philosophies about
>>>> Knowledge might have had some interesting concepts in them, but you
>>>> have convinced me that you are so filled with lies that there can't
>>>> be any understanding about the nature of Truth in anything you can say.
>>>>
>>>> You have basically just proved that you have wasted the last 2
>>>> decades of your list, distroying any reputation you might have built
>>>> up with past works. You will forever be know as the Liar about
>>>> Paradoxes.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>