In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly plugs into
analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:

An analytic expression is: Any expression of language verified as
completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other
expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).

*Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics of natural
language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of assertions) as
being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics

*Analytic truth is*
(a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic meaning to
terms. *similar to axioms*

(b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite string
transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from axioms*

'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

AKA True(RS, G) ≡ (RS ⊢ C)
AKA False(RS, G) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬G)

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly plugs into
> analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:
>
> An analytic expression is: Any expression of language verified as
> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other
> expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>
> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics of natural
> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of assertions) as
> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>
> *Analytic truth is*
> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic meaning to
> terms. *similar to axioms*
>
> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite string
> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from axioms*

Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the definition normally
used does not include your end note of "similar to proof from axioms",
but allows for the application of an INFINITE sequence to establish
truth, while proofs require a finite sequences.

Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
"Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying to use it to
support your position is counter-productive.

This has been pointed out to you many times, and your refusal to learn
it just shows your total ignorance and stupidity with regard to logic.

>
> '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
>
> AKA  True(RS, G) ≡ (RS ⊢ C)
> AKA False(RS, G) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬G)
>
>

Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show that to be true.

Thus, your fallacious appeal to authority is just invalid logic, proving
that you just don't un

On 2/3/2024 6:03 PM, olcott wrote:

Math tries to override and supersede the generic way that analytical
truth really works.

*An analytic expression* is any expression of language verified as
completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other
expressions of language that are stipulated to be true thus providing
the semantic meaning of terms.

*Analytic truth is*
(a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic meaning to
terms. (similar to axioms)

(b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite string
transformations to elements of (a) (similar to proofs from axioms)

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly plugs into
>> analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:
>>
>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of language verified as
>> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other
>> expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>
>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics of natural
>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of assertions) as
>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>
>> *Analytic truth is*
>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic meaning to
>> terms. *similar to axioms*
>>
>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite string
>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from axioms*
>
>
> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the definition normally
> used does not include your end note of "similar to proof from axioms",
> but allows for the application of an INFINITE sequence to establish
> truth, while proofs require a finite sequences.
>
> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
> "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying to use it to
> support your position is counter-productive.
>
> This has been pointed out to you many times, and your refusal to learn
> it just shows your total ignorance and stupidity with regard to logic.
>
>
>>
>> '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
>>
>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>
>>
>
> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show that to be
> true.

*This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.

*This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really works*
*thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly plugs into
>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:
>>>
>>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of language verified as
>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other
>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>>
>>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics of natural
>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of assertions) as
>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>
>>> *Analytic truth is*
>>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic meaning to
>>> terms. *similar to axioms*
>>>
>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite string
>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from axioms*
>>
>>
>> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the definition normally
>> used does not include your end note of "similar to proof from axioms",
>> but allows for the application of an INFINITE sequence to establish
>> truth, while proofs require a finite sequences.
>>
>> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
>> "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying to use it to
>> support your position is counter-productive.
>>
>> This has been pointed out to you many times, and your refusal to learn
>> it just shows your total ignorance and stupidity with regard to logic.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> '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
>>>
>>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show that to be
>> true.
>
> *This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
>  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
> False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.

So, an ERROR.

>
> I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.

And you are BOTH WRONG.

>
> *This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really works*
> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*
>

Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological lying idiot.

On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly plugs into
>>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:
>>>>
>>>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of language verified as
>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other
>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>>>
>>>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics of natural
>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of assertions) as
>>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>
>>>> *Analytic truth is*
>>>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic meaning
>>>> to terms. *similar to axioms*
>>>>
>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite string
>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from axioms*
>>>
>>>
>>> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the definition
>>> normally used does not include your end note of "similar to proof
>>> from axioms", but allows for the application of an INFINITE sequence
>>> to establish truth, while proofs require a finite sequences.
>>>
>>> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
>>> "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying to use it
>>> to support your position is counter-productive.
>>>
>>> This has been pointed out to you many times, and your refusal to
>>> learn it just shows your total ignorance and stupidity with regard to
>>> logic.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> '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
>>>>
>>>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show that to
>>> be true.
>>
>> *This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
>>   True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>> False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>
> WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.
>
> So, an ERROR.
>
>
>>
>> I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.
>
> And you are BOTH WRONG.
>
>>
>> *This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really works*
>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*
>>
>
> Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological lying idiot.

*It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*
An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.

That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
sort of valid counter-example.

Try and find any expression of language that must be true or false
that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that derive
its truth or falsity.

*If this can't possibly be done then that proves that I am correct*

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly plugs into
>>>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:
>>>>>
>>>>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of language verified as
>>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other
>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>>>>
>>>>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics of natural
>>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of assertions) as
>>>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>
>>>>> *Analytic truth is*
>>>>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic meaning
>>>>> to terms. *similar to axioms*
>>>>>
>>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite string
>>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from axioms*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the definition
>>>> normally used does not include your end note of "similar to proof
>>>> from axioms", but allows for the application of an INFINITE sequence
>>>> to establish truth, while proofs require a finite sequences.
>>>>
>>>> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
>>>> "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying to use it
>>>> to support your position is counter-productive.
>>>>
>>>> This has been pointed out to you many times, and your refusal to
>>>> learn it just shows your total ignorance and stupidity with regard
>>>> to logic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> '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
>>>>>
>>>>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show that to
>>>> be true.
>>>
>>> *This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
>>>   True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>> False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>
>> WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.
>>
>> So, an ERROR.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.
>>
>> And you are BOTH WRONG.
>>
>>>
>>> *This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really works*
>>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*
>>>
>>
>> Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological lying idiot.
>
> *It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*

I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't know what it
means.

ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are "stupid" (or
some other attribute).

I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG, and point out
why you are wrong.

> An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.

Which you fail to do.

YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong, and claim to
do so by claiming to show a counter example.

I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't need a
counter-example.

I show that your counter-example fails to meet the definitions,

The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the actual machine,
not some unsound logic based on a partial simulation.] That behavior is
to reach a final state.

In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an answer, I
show that the answer it gives is wrong.

>
> That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
> sort of valid counter-example.

It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG definitions, by
looking at your own words.

>
> Try and find any expression of language that must be true or false
> that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that derive
> its truth or falsity.

So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.

I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence of steps, not
even infinite.

I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain, either finite
or infinite, from the truth makers of the system.

YOU have tried to claim that it must be a finite chain (and thus usable
as a proof).

If you accept that Truth can be established by an infinite chain of
steps, then you admit that some truth might not be Provable, as the
definition of proof (at least in normal logic system) requires a finite
chain to the statement, not infinite.

>
> *If this can't possibly be done then that proves that I am correct*
>

NO, it prove yourself to be a lying idiot.

It really looks like you are having mental problems, I do suggest you
seek professional help. It may well be that you are too far gone, but
your logic has visible deteriated over the last couple of years.

You have stopped coming up with new ways to phrase your errors, and have
just gotten repetitive,

On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly plugs into
>>>>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of language verified as
>>>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other
>>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics of natural
>>>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of assertions) as
>>>>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Analytic truth is*
>>>>>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic meaning
>>>>>> to terms. *similar to axioms*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite string
>>>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from axioms*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the definition
>>>>> normally used does not include your end note of "similar to proof
>>>>> from axioms", but allows for the application of an INFINITE
>>>>> sequence to establish truth, while proofs require a finite sequences.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
>>>>> "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying to use it
>>>>> to support your position is counter-productive.
>>>>>
>>>>> This has been pointed out to you many times, and your refusal to
>>>>> learn it just shows your total ignorance and stupidity with regard
>>>>> to logic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> '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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show that to
>>>>> be true.
>>>>
>>>> *This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
>>>>   True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>> False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>
>>> WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.
>>>
>>> So, an ERROR.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.
>>>
>>> And you are BOTH WRONG.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> *This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really works*
>>>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological lying idiot.
>>
>> *It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*
>
> I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't know what it
> means.
>
> ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are "stupid" (or
> some other attribute).
>
> I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG, and point out
> why you are wrong.
>
>
>> An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.
>
> Which you fail to do.
>
> YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong, and claim to
> do so by claiming to show a counter example.
>
> I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't need a
> counter-example.
>
> I show that your counter-example fails to meet the definitions,
>
> The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the actual machine,
> not some unsound logic based on a partial simulation.] That behavior is
> to reach a final state.
>
> In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an answer, I
> show that the answer it gives is wrong.
>
>>
>> That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
>> sort of valid counter-example.
>
>
> It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG definitions, by
> looking at your own words.
>
>>
>> Try and find any expression of language that must be true or false
>> that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that derive
>> its truth or falsity.
>
> So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.
>
> I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence of steps, not
> even infinite.
>
> I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain, either finite
> or infinite, from the truth makers of the system.
>

*That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*

What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
wrong with them such as:

....14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly plugs into
>>>>>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of language verified as
>>>>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other
>>>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
>>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics of natural
>>>>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of
>>>>>>> assertions) as
>>>>>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Analytic truth is*
>>>>>>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic
>>>>>>> meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite string
>>>>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from axioms*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the definition
>>>>>> normally used does not include your end note of "similar to proof
>>>>>> from axioms", but allows for the application of an INFINITE
>>>>>> sequence to establish truth, while proofs require a finite sequences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
>>>>>> "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying to use
>>>>>> it to support your position is counter-productive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This has been pointed out to you many times, and your refusal to
>>>>>> learn it just shows your total ignorance and stupidity with regard
>>>>>> to logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> '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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show that
>>>>>> to be true.
>>>>>
>>>>> *This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
>>>>>   True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>> False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>
>>>> WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.
>>>>
>>>> So, an ERROR.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
>>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.
>>>>
>>>> And you are BOTH WRONG.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really works*
>>>>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological lying idiot.
>>>
>>> *It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*
>>
>> I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't know what
>> it means.
>>
>> ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are "stupid" (or
>> some other attribute).
>>
>> I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG, and point
>> out why you are wrong.
>>
>>
>>> An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.
>>
>> Which you fail to do.
>>
>> YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong, and claim to
>> do so by claiming to show a counter example.
>>
>> I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't need a
>> counter-example.
>>
>> I show that your counter-example fails to meet the definitions,
>>
>> The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the actual machine,
>> not some unsound logic based on a partial simulation.] That behavior
>> is to reach a final state.
>>
>> In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an answer, I
>> show that the answer it gives is wrong.
>>
>>>
>>> That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
>>> sort of valid counter-example.
>>
>>
>> It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG definitions, by
>> looking at your own words.
>>
>>>
>>> Try and find any expression of language that must be true or false
>>> that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that derive
>>> its truth or falsity.
>>
>> So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.
>>
>> I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence of steps,
>> not even infinite.
>>
>> I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain, either finite
>> or infinite, from the truth makers of the system.
>>
>
> *That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*
>
> What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
> are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
> wrong with them such as:
>
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
> similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)
>
>

Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or irrefutable because
the statement has not truth value. The Liar is one of them.

But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument there is
just invalid.

He did not "start" with a reasoning form the epistemological antinomy,
but used a transformation that takes the FORM of one, and makes it intp
a statement that actually has semantic meaning and a truth value.

The methods seem to be beyond your reasoning, so I won't try to explain
it, but TRY to find where in his proof he actually does what you say he
does.

Where is the Liar's Paradox actually used in part of the proof. (Not
just his statement about being able to "use" something else that is
similar).

Note, the statement "G is defined as G is not provable in F if and only
if G is True if F" is NOT "the Liars Paradox" as that has the assertion
that the Liar is FALSE if and only if it is True. Not being provable is
definitionally different than not being true.

You have even admitted it, as you just recently admited that Truth can
have an infinite chain connection, while proof must have a finite chain,
so any statement with only an infinite chain would be True but not Provable.

On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly plugs into
>>>>>>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of language verified as
>>>>>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other
>>>>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
>>>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics of
>>>>>>>> natural
>>>>>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of
>>>>>>>> assertions) as
>>>>>>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Analytic truth is*
>>>>>>>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic
>>>>>>>> meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite string
>>>>>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from axioms*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the definition
>>>>>>> normally used does not include your end note of "similar to proof
>>>>>>> from axioms", but allows for the application of an INFINITE
>>>>>>> sequence to establish truth, while proofs require a finite
>>>>>>> sequences.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
>>>>>>> "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying to use
>>>>>>> it to support your position is counter-productive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This has been pointed out to you many times, and your refusal to
>>>>>>> learn it just shows your total ignorance and stupidity with
>>>>>>> regard to logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> '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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show that
>>>>>>> to be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
>>>>>>   True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>> False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>
>>>>> WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, an ERROR.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
>>>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you are BOTH WRONG.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really works*
>>>>>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological lying idiot.
>>>>
>>>> *It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*
>>>
>>> I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't know what
>>> it means.
>>>
>>> ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are "stupid" (or
>>> some other attribute).
>>>
>>> I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG, and point
>>> out why you are wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>> An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.
>>>
>>> Which you fail to do.
>>>
>>> YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong, and claim
>>> to do so by claiming to show a counter example.
>>>
>>> I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't need a
>>> counter-example.
>>>
>>> I show that your counter-example fails to meet the definitions,
>>>
>>> The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the actual
>>> machine, not some unsound logic based on a partial simulation.] That
>>> behavior is to reach a final state.
>>>
>>> In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an answer, I
>>> show that the answer it gives is wrong.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
>>>> sort of valid counter-example.
>>>
>>>
>>> It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG definitions, by
>>> looking at your own words.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try and find any expression of language that must be true or false
>>>> that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that derive
>>>> its truth or falsity.
>>>
>>> So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.
>>>
>>> I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence of steps,
>>> not even infinite.
>>>
>>> I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain, either
>>> finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the system.
>>>
>>
>> *That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*
>>
>> What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
>> are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
>> wrong with them such as:
>>
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>> similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)
>>
>>
>
> Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or irrefutable because
> the statement has not truth value. The Liar is one of them.
>
> But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument there is
> just invalid.
>

He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he did not
understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You
seem to understand this thus putting you above him.

> He did not "start" with a reasoning form the epistemological antinomy,
> but used a transformation that takes the FORM of one, and makes it intp
> a statement that actually has semantic meaning and a truth value.
>

Tarski proved that the Liar Paradox (when applied to itself) is true.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true.

He and Gödel never understood that epistemological antinomies are
erroneous. You do understand this placing you above both of them.

> The methods seem to be beyond your reasoning, so I won't try to explain
> it, but TRY to find where in his proof he actually does what you say he
> does.
>

I have done that many times with Tarski and you simply don't believe me

But the diagonal lemma yields a counterexample to this equivalence, by
giving a "liar" formula S such that S ⟺ ¬True(g(A)) holds in N. This
is a contradiction QED.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem#General_form

On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly plugs
>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of language verified as
>>>>>>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other
>>>>>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
>>>>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics of
>>>>>>>>> natural
>>>>>>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of
>>>>>>>>> assertions) as
>>>>>>>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Analytic truth is*
>>>>>>>>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic
>>>>>>>>> meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite string
>>>>>>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from axioms*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the definition
>>>>>>>> normally used does not include your end note of "similar to
>>>>>>>> proof from axioms", but allows for the application of an
>>>>>>>> INFINITE sequence to establish truth, while proofs require a
>>>>>>>> finite sequences.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
>>>>>>>> "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying to use
>>>>>>>> it to support your position is counter-productive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This has been pointed out to you many times, and your refusal to
>>>>>>>> learn it just shows your total ignorance and stupidity with
>>>>>>>> regard to logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> '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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show that
>>>>>>>> to be true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
>>>>>>>   True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>> False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, an ERROR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
>>>>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you are BOTH WRONG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really works*
>>>>>>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological lying idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>> *It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*
>>>>
>>>> I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't know
>>>> what it means.
>>>>
>>>> ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are "stupid"
>>>> (or some other attribute).
>>>>
>>>> I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG, and point
>>>> out why you are wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.
>>>>
>>>> Which you fail to do.
>>>>
>>>> YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong, and claim
>>>> to do so by claiming to show a counter example.
>>>>
>>>> I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't need a
>>>> counter-example.
>>>>
>>>> I show that your counter-example fails to meet the definitions,
>>>>
>>>> The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the actual
>>>> machine, not some unsound logic based on a partial simulation.] That
>>>> behavior is to reach a final state.
>>>>
>>>> In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an answer,
>>>> I show that the answer it gives is wrong.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
>>>>> sort of valid counter-example.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG definitions, by
>>>> looking at your own words.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Try and find any expression of language that must be true or false
>>>>> that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that derive
>>>>> its truth or falsity.
>>>>
>>>> So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.
>>>>
>>>> I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence of steps,
>>>> not even infinite.
>>>>
>>>> I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain, either
>>>> finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the system.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*
>>>
>>> What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
>>> are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
>>> wrong with them such as:
>>>
>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>> similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or irrefutable because
>> the statement has not truth value. The Liar is one of them.
>>
>> But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument there is
>> just invalid.
>>
>
> He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he did not
> understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You
> seem to understand this thus putting you above him.

Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to know that
Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so your claim otherwise is
just noise.

You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something they did not to.

THAT is Libel.

>
>> He did not "start" with a reasoning form the epistemological antinomy,
>> but used a transformation that takes the FORM of one, and makes it
>> intp a statement that actually has semantic meaning and a truth value.
>>
>
> Tarski proved that the Liar Paradox (when applied to itself) is true.
> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true.

On 2/4/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly plugs
>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of language verified as
>>>>>>>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other
>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
>>>>>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics of
>>>>>>>>>> natural
>>>>>>>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of
>>>>>>>>>> assertions) as
>>>>>>>>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Analytic truth is*
>>>>>>>>>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic
>>>>>>>>>> meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite
>>>>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from
>>>>>>>>>> axioms*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the definition
>>>>>>>>> normally used does not include your end note of "similar to
>>>>>>>>> proof from axioms", but allows for the application of an
>>>>>>>>> INFINITE sequence to establish truth, while proofs require a
>>>>>>>>> finite sequences.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
>>>>>>>>> "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying to
>>>>>>>>> use it to support your position is counter-productive.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This has been pointed out to you many times, and your refusal
>>>>>>>>> to learn it just shows your total ignorance and stupidity with
>>>>>>>>> regard to logic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> '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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show
>>>>>>>>> that to be true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
>>>>>>>>   True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>> False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, an ERROR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
>>>>>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you are BOTH WRONG.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really works*
>>>>>>>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological lying idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't know
>>>>> what it means.
>>>>>
>>>>> ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are "stupid"
>>>>> (or some other attribute).
>>>>>
>>>>> I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG, and point
>>>>> out why you are wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which you fail to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong, and claim
>>>>> to do so by claiming to show a counter example.
>>>>>
>>>>> I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't need a
>>>>> counter-example.
>>>>>
>>>>> I show that your counter-example fails to meet the definitions,
>>>>>
>>>>> The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the actual
>>>>> machine, not some unsound logic based on a partial simulation.]
>>>>> That behavior is to reach a final state.
>>>>>
>>>>> In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an answer,
>>>>> I show that the answer it gives is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
>>>>>> sort of valid counter-example.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG definitions, by
>>>>> looking at your own words.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try and find any expression of language that must be true or false
>>>>>> that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that derive
>>>>>> its truth or falsity.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.
>>>>>
>>>>> I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence of
>>>>> steps, not even infinite.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain, either
>>>>> finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the system.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*
>>>>
>>>> What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
>>>> are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
>>>> wrong with them such as:
>>>>
>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>> similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or irrefutable because
>>> the statement has not truth value. The Liar is one of them.
>>>
>>> But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument there is
>>> just invalid.
>>>
>>
>> He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he did not
>> understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You
>> seem to understand this thus putting you above him.
>
> Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to know that
> Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so your claim otherwise is
> just noise.
>
> You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something they did not
> to.
>
> THAT is Libel.
>

On 2/4/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/4/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> plugs into
>>>>>>>>>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>> verified as
>>>>>>>>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other
>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
>>>>>>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics of
>>>>>>>>>>> natural
>>>>>>>>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>> assertions) as
>>>>>>>>>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Analytic truth is*
>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic
>>>>>>>>>>> meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite
>>>>>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from
>>>>>>>>>>> axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the definition
>>>>>>>>>> normally used does not include your end note of "similar to
>>>>>>>>>> proof from axioms", but allows for the application of an
>>>>>>>>>> INFINITE sequence to establish truth, while proofs require a
>>>>>>>>>> finite sequences.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
>>>>>>>>>> "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying to
>>>>>>>>>> use it to support your position is counter-productive.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This has been pointed out to you many times, and your refusal
>>>>>>>>>> to learn it just shows your total ignorance and stupidity with
>>>>>>>>>> regard to logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> '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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show
>>>>>>>>>> that to be true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
>>>>>>>>>   True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>> False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, an ERROR.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
>>>>>>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you are BOTH WRONG.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really works*
>>>>>>>>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological lying
>>>>>>>> idiot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't know
>>>>>> what it means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are "stupid"
>>>>>> (or some other attribute).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG, and
>>>>>> point out why you are wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which you fail to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong, and
>>>>>> claim to do so by claiming to show a counter example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't need a
>>>>>> counter-example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I show that your counter-example fails to meet the definitions,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the actual
>>>>>> machine, not some unsound logic based on a partial simulation.]
>>>>>> That behavior is to reach a final state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an
>>>>>> answer, I show that the answer it gives is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
>>>>>>> sort of valid counter-example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG definitions,
>>>>>> by looking at your own words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try and find any expression of language that must be true or false
>>>>>>> that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that derive
>>>>>>> its truth or falsity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence of
>>>>>> steps, not even infinite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain, either
>>>>>> finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*
>>>>>
>>>>> What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
>>>>> are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
>>>>> wrong with them such as:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>> similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or irrefutable
>>>> because the statement has not truth value. The Liar is one of them.
>>>>
>>>> But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument there is
>>>> just invalid.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he did not
>>> understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You
>>> seem to understand this thus putting you above him.
>>
>> Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to know that
>> Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so your claim otherwise
>> is just noise.
>>
>> You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something they did
>> not to.
>>
>> THAT is Libel.
>>
>
> That Gödel did not understand that epistemological antinomies must
> be rejected as erroneous is factual. This by itself proves that he
> did not correctly understand undecidability, the key element of
> his proof.
>

On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/4/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/4/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> plugs into
>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>>> verified as
>>>>>>>>>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other
>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
>>>>>>>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics of
>>>>>>>>>>>> natural
>>>>>>>>>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions) as
>>>>>>>>>>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Analytic truth is*
>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite
>>>>>>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>>>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from
>>>>>>>>>>>> axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the definition
>>>>>>>>>>> normally used does not include your end note of "similar to
>>>>>>>>>>> proof from axioms", but allows for the application of an
>>>>>>>>>>> INFINITE sequence to establish truth, while proofs require a
>>>>>>>>>>> finite sequences.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
>>>>>>>>>>> "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying to
>>>>>>>>>>> use it to support your position is counter-productive.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This has been pointed out to you many times, and your refusal
>>>>>>>>>>> to learn it just shows your total ignorance and stupidity
>>>>>>>>>>> with regard to logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> '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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show
>>>>>>>>>>> that to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
>>>>>>>>>>   True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>> False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, an ERROR.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
>>>>>>>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And you are BOTH WRONG.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really
>>>>>>>>>> works*
>>>>>>>>>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological lying
>>>>>>>>> idiot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't know
>>>>>>> what it means.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are "stupid"
>>>>>>> (or some other attribute).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG, and
>>>>>>> point out why you are wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which you fail to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong, and
>>>>>>> claim to do so by claiming to show a counter example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't need a
>>>>>>> counter-example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I show that your counter-example fails to meet the definitions,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the actual
>>>>>>> machine, not some unsound logic based on a partial simulation.]
>>>>>>> That behavior is to reach a final state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an
>>>>>>> answer, I show that the answer it gives is wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
>>>>>>>> sort of valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG definitions,
>>>>>>> by looking at your own words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try and find any expression of language that must be true or false
>>>>>>>> that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that derive
>>>>>>>> its truth or falsity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence of
>>>>>>> steps, not even infinite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain, either
>>>>>>> finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
>>>>>> are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
>>>>>> wrong with them such as:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>> similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or irrefutable
>>>>> because the statement has not truth value. The Liar is one of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument there
>>>>> is just invalid.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he did not
>>>> understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You
>>>> seem to understand this thus putting you above him.
>>>
>>> Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to know that
>>> Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so your claim otherwise
>>> is just noise.
>>>
>>> You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something they did
>>> not to.
>>>
>>> THAT is Libel.
>>>
>>
>> That Gödel did not understand that epistemological antinomies must
>> be rejected as erroneous is factual. This by itself proves that he
>> did not correctly understand undecidability, the key element of
>> his proof.
>>
>
> But he didn't do what you claim, showing that YOU are the stupid and
> ignorant one.

On 2/4/24 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/4/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/4/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> plugs into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions) as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Analytic truth is*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> definition normally used does not include your end note of
>>>>>>>>>>>> "similar to proof from axioms", but allows for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> application of an INFINITE sequence to establish truth,
>>>>>>>>>>>> while proofs require a finite sequences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>> use it to support your position is counter-productive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This has been pointed out to you many times, and your
>>>>>>>>>>>> refusal to learn it just shows your total ignorance and
>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity with regard to logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> '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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show
>>>>>>>>>>>> that to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
>>>>>>>>>>>   True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>> False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, an ERROR.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
>>>>>>>>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And you are BOTH WRONG.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really
>>>>>>>>>>> works*
>>>>>>>>>>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological lying
>>>>>>>>>> idiot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't know
>>>>>>>> what it means.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are
>>>>>>>> "stupid" (or some other attribute).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG, and
>>>>>>>> point out why you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which you fail to do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong, and
>>>>>>>> claim to do so by claiming to show a counter example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't need a
>>>>>>>> counter-example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I show that your counter-example fails to meet the definitions,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the actual
>>>>>>>> machine, not some unsound logic based on a partial simulation.]
>>>>>>>> That behavior is to reach a final state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an
>>>>>>>> answer, I show that the answer it gives is wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
>>>>>>>>> sort of valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG definitions,
>>>>>>>> by looking at your own words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try and find any expression of language that must be true or false
>>>>>>>>> that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that derive
>>>>>>>>> its truth or falsity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence of
>>>>>>>> steps, not even infinite.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain, either
>>>>>>>> finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
>>>>>>> are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
>>>>>>> wrong with them such as:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or irrefutable
>>>>>> because the statement has not truth value. The Liar is one of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument there
>>>>>> is just invalid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he did not
>>>>> understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You
>>>>> seem to understand this thus putting you above him.
>>>>
>>>> Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to know
>>>> that Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so your claim
>>>> otherwise is just noise.
>>>>
>>>> You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something they did
>>>> not to.
>>>>
>>>> THAT is Libel.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That Gödel did not understand that epistemological antinomies must
>>> be rejected as erroneous is factual. This by itself proves that he
>>> did not correctly understand undecidability, the key element of
>>> his proof.
>>>
>>
>> But he didn't do what you claim, showing that YOU are the stupid and
>> ignorant one.
>
> Whether or not he did or did not do what I claim, he did assert
> that he intended to do what I claim.
> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
> unprovability...(Gödel 1931:43-44)

On 2/4/2024 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/4/24 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/4/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plugs into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions) as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Analytic truth is*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition normally used does not include your end note of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "similar to proof from axioms", but allows for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> application of an INFINITE sequence to establish truth,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> while proofs require a finite sequences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use it to support your position is counter-productive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has been pointed out to you many times, and your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> refusal to learn it just shows your total ignorance and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity with regard to logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
>>>>>>>>>>>>   True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>>> False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, an ERROR.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
>>>>>>>>>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And you are BOTH WRONG.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really
>>>>>>>>>>>> works*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological lying
>>>>>>>>>>> idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't
>>>>>>>>> know what it means.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are
>>>>>>>>> "stupid" (or some other attribute).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG, and
>>>>>>>>> point out why you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which you fail to do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong, and
>>>>>>>>> claim to do so by claiming to show a counter example.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't need a
>>>>>>>>> counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I show that your counter-example fails to meet the definitions,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the actual
>>>>>>>>> machine, not some unsound logic based on a partial simulation.]
>>>>>>>>> That behavior is to reach a final state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an
>>>>>>>>> answer, I show that the answer it gives is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
>>>>>>>>>> sort of valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG
>>>>>>>>> definitions, by looking at your own words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try and find any expression of language that must be true or
>>>>>>>>>> false
>>>>>>>>>> that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that derive
>>>>>>>>>> its truth or falsity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence of
>>>>>>>>> steps, not even infinite.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain, either
>>>>>>>>> finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
>>>>>>>> are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
>>>>>>>> wrong with them such as:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or irrefutable
>>>>>>> because the statement has not truth value. The Liar is one of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument there
>>>>>>> is just invalid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he did not
>>>>>> understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You
>>>>>> seem to understand this thus putting you above him.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to know
>>>>> that Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so your claim
>>>>> otherwise is just noise.
>>>>>
>>>>> You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something they
>>>>> did not to.
>>>>>
>>>>> THAT is Libel.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That Gödel did not understand that epistemological antinomies must
>>>> be rejected as erroneous is factual. This by itself proves that he
>>>> did not correctly understand undecidability, the key element of
>>>> his proof.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But he didn't do what you claim, showing that YOU are the stupid and
>>> ignorant one.
>>
>> Whether or not he did or did not do what I claim, he did assert
>> that he intended to do what I claim.
>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its
>> own unprovability...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>
> Nope.
>
> So, you ADMIT you are just making up your claims.
>
> Good that you are honest about something
>
>>
>> and proved that he failed to understand that epistemological antinomies
>> must be rejected as incorrect thus not the basis for any proof.
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>
>> Gödel did not say I am going to use something in a proof that I
>> already know cannot correctly be used in a proof. He thought
>> that he could use it in a proof and HE WAS WRONG.
>>
>
> Nope, YOU are wrong, because you don't understand what he did.

On 2/4/24 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/4/2024 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/4/24 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/4/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plugs into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions) as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Analytic truth is*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition normally used does not include your end note of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "similar to proof from axioms", but allows for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application of an INFINITE sequence to establish truth,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while proofs require a finite sequences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use it to support your position is counter-productive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has been pointed out to you many times, and your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refusal to learn it just shows your total ignorance and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity with regard to logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show that to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, an ERROR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And you are BOTH WRONG.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really
>>>>>>>>>>>>> works*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>> lying idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't
>>>>>>>>>> know what it means.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are
>>>>>>>>>> "stupid" (or some other attribute).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG, and
>>>>>>>>>> point out why you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which you fail to do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong, and
>>>>>>>>>> claim to do so by claiming to show a counter example.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't need a
>>>>>>>>>> counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I show that your counter-example fails to meet the definitions,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the actual
>>>>>>>>>> machine, not some unsound logic based on a partial
>>>>>>>>>> simulation.] That behavior is to reach a final state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an
>>>>>>>>>> answer, I show that the answer it gives is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
>>>>>>>>>>> sort of valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG
>>>>>>>>>> definitions, by looking at your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Try and find any expression of language that must be true or
>>>>>>>>>>> false
>>>>>>>>>>> that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that derive
>>>>>>>>>>> its truth or falsity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence of
>>>>>>>>>> steps, not even infinite.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain,
>>>>>>>>>> either finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
>>>>>>>>> are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
>>>>>>>>> wrong with them such as:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or irrefutable
>>>>>>>> because the statement has not truth value. The Liar is one of them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument
>>>>>>>> there is just invalid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he did not
>>>>>>> understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You
>>>>>>> seem to understand this thus putting you above him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to know
>>>>>> that Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so your claim
>>>>>> otherwise is just noise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something they
>>>>>> did not to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THAT is Libel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That Gödel did not understand that epistemological antinomies must
>>>>> be rejected as erroneous is factual. This by itself proves that he
>>>>> did not correctly understand undecidability, the key element of
>>>>> his proof.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But he didn't do what you claim, showing that YOU are the stupid and
>>>> ignorant one.
>>>
>>> Whether or not he did or did not do what I claim, he did assert
>>> that he intended to do what I claim.
>>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its
>>> own unprovability...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> So, you ADMIT you are just making up your claims.
>>
>> Good that you are honest about something
>>
>>>
>>> and proved that he failed to understand that epistemological antinomies
>>> must be rejected as incorrect thus not the basis for any proof.
>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>
>>> Gödel did not say I am going to use something in a proof that I
>>> already know cannot correctly be used in a proof. He thought
>>> that he could use it in a proof and HE WAS WRONG.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, YOU are wrong, because you don't understand what he did.
>
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
> WRONG !!!
>
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
> WRONG !!!
>
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
> WRONG !!!
>
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
> WRONG !!!
>
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
> WRONG !!!
>
>

On 2/4/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/4/24 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/4/2024 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/4/24 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/4/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plugs into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions) as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Analytic truth is*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition normally used does not include your end note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "similar to proof from axioms", but allows for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application of an INFINITE sequence to establish truth,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while proofs require a finite sequences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use it to support your position is counter-productive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has been pointed out to you many times, and your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refusal to learn it just shows your total ignorance and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity with regard to logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show that to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, an ERROR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you are BOTH WRONG.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really works*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't
>>>>>>>>>>> know what it means.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are
>>>>>>>>>>> "stupid" (or some other attribute).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG, and
>>>>>>>>>>> point out why you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which you fail to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong, and
>>>>>>>>>>> claim to do so by claiming to show a counter example.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't need
>>>>>>>>>>> a counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I show that your counter-example fails to meet the definitions,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the actual
>>>>>>>>>>> machine, not some unsound logic based on a partial
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.] That behavior is to reach a final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an
>>>>>>>>>>> answer, I show that the answer it gives is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG
>>>>>>>>>>> definitions, by looking at your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Try and find any expression of language that must be true or
>>>>>>>>>>>> false
>>>>>>>>>>>> that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that derive
>>>>>>>>>>>> its truth or falsity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>> steps, not even infinite.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain,
>>>>>>>>>>> either finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
>>>>>>>>>> are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
>>>>>>>>>> wrong with them such as:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or irrefutable
>>>>>>>>> because the statement has not truth value. The Liar is one of
>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument
>>>>>>>>> there is just invalid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he did not
>>>>>>>> understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You
>>>>>>>> seem to understand this thus putting you above him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to know
>>>>>>> that Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so your claim
>>>>>>> otherwise is just noise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something they
>>>>>>> did not to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THAT is Libel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That Gödel did not understand that epistemological antinomies must
>>>>>> be rejected as erroneous is factual. This by itself proves that he
>>>>>> did not correctly understand undecidability, the key element of
>>>>>> his proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But he didn't do what you claim, showing that YOU are the stupid
>>>>> and ignorant one.
>>>>
>>>> Whether or not he did or did not do what I claim, he did assert
>>>> that he intended to do what I claim.
>>>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its
>>>> own unprovability...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> So, you ADMIT you are just making up your claims.
>>>
>>> Good that you are honest about something
>>>
>>>>
>>>> and proved that he failed to understand that epistemological antinomies
>>>> must be rejected as incorrect thus not the basis for any proof.
>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>
>>>> Gödel did not say I am going to use something in a proof that I
>>>> already know cannot correctly be used in a proof. He thought
>>>> that he could use it in a proof and HE WAS WRONG.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, YOU are wrong, because you don't understand what he did.
>>
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>> WRONG !!!
>>
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>> WRONG !!!
>>
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>> WRONG !!!
>>
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>> WRONG !!!
>>
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>> WRONG !!!
>>
>>
>
>
> Which doesn't meen he built the proof of an assumption that the
> epistemological antinomy was anything other than an epistemological
> antinomy, and thus didn't drive any statement truth from such a statement.

On 2/4/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/4/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/4/24 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/4/2024 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/24 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/4/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly plugs into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions) as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Analytic truth is*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition normally used does not include your end note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "similar to proof from axioms", but allows for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application of an INFINITE sequence to establish truth,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while proofs require a finite sequences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to use it to support your position is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter-productive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has been pointed out to you many times, and your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refusal to learn it just shows your total ignorance and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity with regard to logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show that to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, an ERROR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you are BOTH WRONG.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really works*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> know what it means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are
>>>>>>>>>>>> "stupid" (or some other attribute).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and point out why you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you fail to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and claim to do so by claiming to show a counter example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't need
>>>>>>>>>>>> a counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I show that your counter-example fails to meet the definitions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual machine, not some unsound logic based on a partial
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.] That behavior is to reach a final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an
>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, I show that the answer it gives is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG
>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions, by looking at your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try and find any expression of language that must be true
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or false
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> derive
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its truth or falsity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence
>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps, not even infinite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain,
>>>>>>>>>>>> either finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
>>>>>>>>>>> are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with them such as:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or irrefutable
>>>>>>>>>> because the statement has not truth value. The Liar is one of
>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument
>>>>>>>>>> there is just invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he did not
>>>>>>>>> understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You
>>>>>>>>> seem to understand this thus putting you above him.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to know
>>>>>>>> that Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so your claim
>>>>>>>> otherwise is just noise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something they
>>>>>>>> did not to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THAT is Libel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That Gödel did not understand that epistemological antinomies must
>>>>>>> be rejected as erroneous is factual. This by itself proves that he
>>>>>>> did not correctly understand undecidability, the key element of
>>>>>>> his proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But he didn't do what you claim, showing that YOU are the stupid
>>>>>> and ignorant one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether or not he did or did not do what I claim, he did assert
>>>>> that he intended to do what I claim.
>>>>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its
>>>>> own unprovability...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> So, you ADMIT you are just making up your claims.
>>>>
>>>> Good that you are honest about something
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and proved that he failed to understand that epistemological
>>>>> antinomies
>>>>> must be rejected as incorrect thus not the basis for any proof.
>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>
>>>>> Gödel did not say I am going to use something in a proof that I
>>>>> already know cannot correctly be used in a proof. He thought
>>>>> that he could use it in a proof and HE WAS WRONG.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, YOU are wrong, because you don't understand what he did.
>>>
>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>> WRONG !!!
>>>
>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>> WRONG !!!
>>>
>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>> WRONG !!!
>>>
>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>> WRONG !!!
>>>
>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>> WRONG !!!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Which doesn't meen he built the proof of an assumption that the
>> epistemological antinomy was anything other than an epistemological
>> antinomy, and thus didn't drive any statement truth from such a
>> statement.
>
> It conclusively proves that he did not understand the key idea of his
> whole proof: undecidability.
>

On 2/4/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/4/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/4/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/4/24 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/2024 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/4/24 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly plugs into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions) as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Analytic truth is*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition normally used does not include your end note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "similar to proof from axioms", but allows for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application of an INFINITE sequence to establish truth,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while proofs require a finite sequences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to use it to support your position is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter-productive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has been pointed out to you many times, and your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refusal to learn it just shows your total ignorance and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity with regard to logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show that to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, an ERROR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you are BOTH WRONG.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really works*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> know what it means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stupid" (or some other attribute).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and point out why you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you fail to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and claim to do so by claiming to show a counter example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need a counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I show that your counter-example fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual machine, not some unsound logic based on a partial
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.] That behavior is to reach a final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, I show that the answer it gives is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions, by looking at your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try and find any expression of language that must be true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its truth or falsity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps, not even infinite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> either finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>> are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with them such as:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or irrefutable
>>>>>>>>>>> because the statement has not truth value. The Liar is one of
>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument
>>>>>>>>>>> there is just invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he did not
>>>>>>>>>> understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You
>>>>>>>>>> seem to understand this thus putting you above him.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to
>>>>>>>>> know that Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so your
>>>>>>>>> claim otherwise is just noise.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something
>>>>>>>>> they did not to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> THAT is Libel.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That Gödel did not understand that epistemological antinomies must
>>>>>>>> be rejected as erroneous is factual. This by itself proves that he
>>>>>>>> did not correctly understand undecidability, the key element of
>>>>>>>> his proof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But he didn't do what you claim, showing that YOU are the stupid
>>>>>>> and ignorant one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether or not he did or did not do what I claim, he did assert
>>>>>> that he intended to do what I claim.
>>>>>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts
>>>>>> its own unprovability...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you ADMIT you are just making up your claims.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good that you are honest about something
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and proved that he failed to understand that epistemological
>>>>>> antinomies
>>>>>> must be rejected as incorrect thus not the basis for any proof.
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gödel did not say I am going to use something in a proof that I
>>>>>> already know cannot correctly be used in a proof. He thought
>>>>>> that he could use it in a proof and HE WAS WRONG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, YOU are wrong, because you don't understand what he did.
>>>>
>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>
>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>
>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>
>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>
>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Which doesn't meen he built the proof of an assumption that the
>>> epistemological antinomy was anything other than an epistemological
>>> antinomy, and thus didn't drive any statement truth from such a
>>> statement.
>>
>> It conclusively proves that he did not understand the key idea of his
>> whole proof: undecidability.
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> I don't think YOU know what that terms means (in computation theory),

On 2/4/24 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/4/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/4/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/4/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/24 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/4/2024 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/4/24 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly plugs into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of assertions) as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Analytic truth is*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition normally used does not include your end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> note of "similar to proof from axioms", but allows for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the application of an INFINITE sequence to establish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth, while proofs require a finite sequences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to use it to support your position is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter-productive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has been pointed out to you many times, and your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refusal to learn it just shows your total ignorance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and stupidity with regard to logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show that to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, an ERROR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you are BOTH WRONG.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really works*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know what it means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stupid" (or some other attribute).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and point out why you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you fail to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and claim to do so by claiming to show a counter example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need a counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I show that your counter-example fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual machine, not some unsound logic based on a partial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.] That behavior is to reach a final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an answer, I show that the answer it gives is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions, by looking at your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try and find any expression of language that must be true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its truth or falsity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps, not even infinite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with them such as:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or
>>>>>>>>>>>> irrefutable because the statement has not truth value. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar is one of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument
>>>>>>>>>>>> there is just invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he did not
>>>>>>>>>>> understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You
>>>>>>>>>>> seem to understand this thus putting you above him.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to
>>>>>>>>>> know that Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so
>>>>>>>>>> your claim otherwise is just noise.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something
>>>>>>>>>> they did not to.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THAT is Libel.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That Gödel did not understand that epistemological antinomies must
>>>>>>>>> be rejected as erroneous is factual. This by itself proves that he
>>>>>>>>> did not correctly understand undecidability, the key element of
>>>>>>>>> his proof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But he didn't do what you claim, showing that YOU are the stupid
>>>>>>>> and ignorant one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whether or not he did or did not do what I claim, he did assert
>>>>>>> that he intended to do what I claim.
>>>>>>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts
>>>>>>> its own unprovability...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you ADMIT you are just making up your claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good that you are honest about something
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and proved that he failed to understand that epistemological
>>>>>>> antinomies
>>>>>>> must be rejected as incorrect thus not the basis for any proof.
>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gödel did not say I am going to use something in a proof that I
>>>>>>> already know cannot correctly be used in a proof. He thought
>>>>>>> that he could use it in a proof and HE WAS WRONG.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, YOU are wrong, because you don't understand what he did.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>
>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>
>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>
>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>
>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which doesn't meen he built the proof of an assumption that the
>>>> epistemological antinomy was anything other than an epistemological
>>>> antinomy, and thus didn't drive any statement truth from such a
>>>> statement.
>>>
>>> It conclusively proves that he did not understand the key idea of his
>>> whole proof: undecidability.
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> I don't think YOU know what that terms means (in computation theory),
>
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>
> Gödel proved that he did not understand undecidability.
>

On 2/4/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/4/24 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/4/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/4/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/4/24 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly plugs into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language verified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relation to other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of assertions) as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Analytic truth is*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs from axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition normally used does not include your end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> note of "similar to proof from axioms", but allows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the application of an INFINITE sequence to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> establish truth, while proofs require a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so trying to use it to support your position is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter-productive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has been pointed out to you many times, and your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refusal to learn it just shows your total ignorance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and stupidity with regard to logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have show that to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, an ERROR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you are BOTH WRONG.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really works*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know what it means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stupid" (or some other attribute).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and point out why you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you fail to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and claim to do so by claiming to show a counter example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need a counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I show that your counter-example fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual machine, not some unsound logic based on a partial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.] That behavior is to reach a final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an answer, I show that the answer it gives is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions, by looking at your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try and find any expression of language that must be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true or false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its truth or falsity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I NEVER said that something could be true with NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of steps, not even infinite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with them such as:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrefutable because the statement has not truth value. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar is one of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is just invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he did
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You
>>>>>>>>>>>> seem to understand this thus putting you above him.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to
>>>>>>>>>>> know that Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so
>>>>>>>>>>> your claim otherwise is just noise.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something
>>>>>>>>>>> they did not to.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> THAT is Libel.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That Gödel did not understand that epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>>> be rejected as erroneous is factual. This by itself proves
>>>>>>>>>> that he
>>>>>>>>>> did not correctly understand undecidability, the key element of
>>>>>>>>>> his proof.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But he didn't do what you claim, showing that YOU are the
>>>>>>>>> stupid and ignorant one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whether or not he did or did not do what I claim, he did assert
>>>>>>>> that he intended to do what I claim.
>>>>>>>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts
>>>>>>>> its own unprovability...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you ADMIT you are just making up your claims.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good that you are honest about something
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and proved that he failed to understand that epistemological
>>>>>>>> antinomies
>>>>>>>> must be rejected as incorrect thus not the basis for any proof.
>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gödel did not say I am going to use something in a proof that I
>>>>>>>> already know cannot correctly be used in a proof. He thought
>>>>>>>> that he could use it in a proof and HE WAS WRONG.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, YOU are wrong, because you don't understand what he did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which doesn't meen he built the proof of an assumption that the
>>>>> epistemological antinomy was anything other than an epistemological
>>>>> antinomy, and thus didn't drive any statement truth from such a
>>>>> statement.
>>>>
>>>> It conclusively proves that he did not understand the key idea of
>>>> his whole proof: undecidability.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> I don't think YOU know what that terms means (in computation theory),
>>
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>
>> Gödel proved that he did not understand undecidability.
>>
>
>
> Nope, YOUprove you don't understand the proof, and are just too stupid
> to understand even the simplified explaination.
>
> Try to prove me wrong and show the actual step in the proof where he
> assumes an epistemological antinomy is a truth bearer.

On 2/4/24 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/4/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/4/24 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/4/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/4/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/4/24 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly plugs into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is true:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language verified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relation to other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of assertions) as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Analytic truth is*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving finite string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs from axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition normally used does not include your end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> note of "similar to proof from axioms", but allows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the application of an INFINITE sequence to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> establish truth, while proofs require a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about why "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used/valid, so trying to use it to support your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position is counter-productive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has been pointed out to you many times, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your refusal to learn it just shows your total
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance and stupidity with regard to logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have show that to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, an ERROR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you are BOTH WRONG.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really works*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pathological lying idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know what it means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stupid" (or some other attribute).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say you are stupid because you are constistantly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG, and point out why you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you fail to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, and claim to do so by claiming to show a counter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need a counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I show that your counter-example fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual machine, not some unsound logic based on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partial simulation.] That behavior is to reach a final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an answer, I show that the answer it gives is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions, by looking at your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try and find any expression of language that must be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true or false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that derive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its truth or falsity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I NEVER said that something could be true with NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of steps, not even infinite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with them such as:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrefutable because the statement has not truth value. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar is one of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument there is just invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> did not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem to understand this thus putting you above him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to
>>>>>>>>>>>> know that Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so
>>>>>>>>>>>> your claim otherwise is just noise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something
>>>>>>>>>>>> they did not to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT is Libel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That Gödel did not understand that epistemological antinomies
>>>>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>>>> be rejected as erroneous is factual. This by itself proves
>>>>>>>>>>> that he
>>>>>>>>>>> did not correctly understand undecidability, the key element of
>>>>>>>>>>> his proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But he didn't do what you claim, showing that YOU are the
>>>>>>>>>> stupid and ignorant one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whether or not he did or did not do what I claim, he did assert
>>>>>>>>> that he intended to do what I claim.
>>>>>>>>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts
>>>>>>>>> its own unprovability...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you ADMIT you are just making up your claims.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good that you are honest about something
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and proved that he failed to understand that epistemological
>>>>>>>>> antinomies
>>>>>>>>> must be rejected as incorrect thus not the basis for any proof.
>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gödel did not say I am going to use something in a proof that I
>>>>>>>>> already know cannot correctly be used in a proof. He thought
>>>>>>>>> that he could use it in a proof and HE WAS WRONG.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, YOU are wrong, because you don't understand what he did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which doesn't meen he built the proof of an assumption that the
>>>>>> epistemological antinomy was anything other than an
>>>>>> epistemological antinomy, and thus didn't drive any statement
>>>>>> truth from such a statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> It conclusively proves that he did not understand the key idea of
>>>>> his whole proof: undecidability.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think YOU know what that terms means (in computation theory),
>>>
>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>
>>> Gödel proved that he did not understand undecidability.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Nope, YOUprove you don't understand the proof, and are just too stupid
>> to understand even the simplified explaination.
>>
>> Try to prove me wrong and show the actual step in the proof where he
>> assumes an epistemological antinomy is a truth bearer.
>
> *You are almost there, and still ahead of both Gödel and Tarski*
>
> Let's start with the easier one first.
>
> Do you understand that non-truth bearers are out-of-scope of a truth
> predicate?
>
>

On 2/5/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/4/24 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/4/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/4/24 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/4/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly plugs into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is true:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An analytic expression is: Any expression of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language verified as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relation to other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of assertions) as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Analytic truth is*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving finite string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs from axioms*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition normally used does not include your end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> note of "similar to proof from axioms", but allows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the application of an INFINITE sequence to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> establish truth, while proofs require a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note also, your reference is almost exclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about why "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used/valid, so trying to use it to support your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position is counter-productive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has been pointed out to you many times, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your refusal to learn it just shows your total
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance and stupidity with regard to logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't actually a true statement, and others
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have show that to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, an ERROR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you are BOTH WRONG.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really works*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pathological lying idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know what it means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are "stupid" (or some other attribute).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I say you are stupid because you are constistantly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG, and point out why you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you fail to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, and claim to do so by claiming to show a counter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need a counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I show that your counter-example fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual machine, not some unsound logic based on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partial simulation.] That behavior is to reach a final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gives an answer, I show that the answer it gives is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of valid counter-example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions, by looking at your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try and find any expression of language that must be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true or false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that derive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its truth or falsity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I NEVER said that something could be true with NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of steps, not even infinite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chain, either finite or infinite, from the truth makers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with them such as:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrefutable because the statement has not truth value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Liar is one of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument there is just invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem to understand this thus putting you above him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your claim otherwise is just noise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they did not to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT is Libel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That Gödel did not understand that epistemological
>>>>>>>>>>>> antinomies must
>>>>>>>>>>>> be rejected as erroneous is factual. This by itself proves
>>>>>>>>>>>> that he
>>>>>>>>>>>> did not correctly understand undecidability, the key element of
>>>>>>>>>>>> his proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But he didn't do what you claim, showing that YOU are the
>>>>>>>>>>> stupid and ignorant one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Whether or not he did or did not do what I claim, he did assert
>>>>>>>>>> that he intended to do what I claim.
>>>>>>>>>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
>>>>>>>>>> asserts its own unprovability...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, you ADMIT you are just making up your claims.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Good that you are honest about something
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and proved that he failed to understand that epistemological
>>>>>>>>>> antinomies
>>>>>>>>>> must be rejected as incorrect thus not the basis for any proof.
>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gödel did not say I am going to use something in a proof that I
>>>>>>>>>> already know cannot correctly be used in a proof. He thought
>>>>>>>>>> that he could use it in a proof and HE WAS WRONG.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, YOU are wrong, because you don't understand what he did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>>>>> WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which doesn't meen he built the proof of an assumption that the
>>>>>>> epistemological antinomy was anything other than an
>>>>>>> epistemological antinomy, and thus didn't drive any statement
>>>>>>> truth from such a statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It conclusively proves that he did not understand the key idea of
>>>>>> his whole proof: undecidability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think YOU know what that terms means (in computation theory),
>>>>
>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
>>>>
>>>> Gödel proved that he did not understand undecidability.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, YOUprove you don't understand the proof, and are just too
>>> stupid to understand even the simplified explaination.
>>>
>>> Try to prove me wrong and show the actual step in the proof where he
>>> assumes an epistemological antinomy is a truth bearer.
>>
>> *You are almost there, and still ahead of both Gödel and Tarski*
>>
>> Let's start with the easier one first.
>>
>> Do you understand that non-truth bearers are out-of-scope of a truth
>> predicate?
>>
>>
>
> Wrong, a Truth Predicate must take every statement that is an element of
> the System.
>

On 5/02/24 15:45, olcott wrote:
> Thus an English poem is valid input to a halt decider.

Only if it is an encoding of a Turing machine.

Every encoding of Turing machines are valid input to a halt decider.
THERE IS NO ENCODING OF A TURING MACHINE WHICH IS NOT A VALID INPUT.