On 5/2/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
>

I trim so that we can stay focused on the point at hand and not diverge
into many unrelated points. The main way that all of the rebuttals of my
work are formed is changing the subject to another different subject and
the rebutting this different subject. I cut all that bullshit out.

> 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

That is well put. G takes the exact same idea as the liar paradox and
then implements this liar paradox with 100,000-fold of additional purely
extraneous complexity.

> 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.
>

I have seen this all along since my research began in 2004.

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