On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this in the
>>>>>> header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>
>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>
>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org NNTP
>>>>> server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>
>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I am
>>> sure of them.
>>>
>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember who)
>>> already pointed out this error to you when you were claiming the
>>> poster in question was from Germany. That's like assuming that
>>> someone must be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly false
>> until independently confirmed. That is how first-principles reasoning
>> works:
>>
>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to reverse-engineer
>> complicated problems and unleash creative possibility. Sometimes
>> called “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break down
>> complicated problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from
>> the ground up.  https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>
>
> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories', since
> they are actually wrong.
>
> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>
> FAIL.

It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not correspond
to conventional wisdom because I have corrected the errors in the
philosophical underpinnings of this conventional wisdom. People acting
like sheep say that I am wrong because they are attached to the
conventional wisdom.

When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have is gibberish
double talk anchored in the fact that they simply do not believe me.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this in
>>>>>>>> the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org NNTP
>>>>>>> server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I am
>>>>> sure of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember who)
>>>>> already pointed out this error to you when you were claiming the
>>>>> poster in question was from Germany. That's like assuming that
>>>>> someone must be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly false
>>>> until independently confirmed. That is how first-principles
>>>> reasoning works:
>>>>
>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first principles,” the
>>>> idea is to break down complicated problems into basic elements and
>>>> then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories', since
>>> they are actually wrong.
>>>
>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>
>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not correspond
>> to conventional wisdom because I have corrected the errors in the
>> philosophical underpinnings of this conventional wisdom. People acting
>> like sheep say that I am wrong because they are attached to the
>> conventional wisdom.
>>
>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have is
>> gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that they simply do not
>> believe me.
>>
>
> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't conform to the
> RULES of the field. They just are not truths, as truths by definition,
> conform to reality, and in a logical field, that includes its rules and
> definitions.
>

When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with themselves then
this inconsistency cannot be ignored and must be resolved.

> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT 'Gibberish', they are
> pointing out that you are BREAKING THE RULES of the field.

No they are not. You simply do not believe that this repeating pattern
can be recognized by embedded_H even though you yourself already
acknowledged that it is an infinitely repeating pattern.

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩

Then these steps would keep repeating:
Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...

> Logically,
> you are an OUTLAW. You can not accept them, because your mind is stuck
> in your fantasy where you THINK you know something that no one else
> does, but that idea is just a lie.
>
> You claims that you have somehow 'proved' something are just flat out
> LIES as the definition of Truth means it obeys the reality of the
> system. Perhaps the simplest one to point out is your insistance that
> the behavior of the simulation of <H^> <H^> does not correspond to the
> behavior of the machine H^ applied to <H^>, when by all definitions of
> simulation, that is the plain meaning.

The fact that embedded_H is applied to a copy of itself reveals
something new that conventional wisdom has never sufficiently accounted
for. No one has ever examined the notion of infinitely nested simulation
applied to the halting problem counter-examples prior to my analysis.

THAT A SIMULATION MUST BE ABORTED TO PREVENT THE INFINITE EXECUTION OF
THIS SIMULATION IS A CORRECT MEASURE THAT THIS INPUT SPECIFIES A
NON-HALTING SEQUENCE OF CONFIGURATIONS.

ALL THAT YOU CAN SAY AS A REBUTTAL TO THAT IS ESSENTIALLY
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH: I REALLY DON'T BELIEVE YOU.

Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ depends on embedded_H aborting its simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
embedded_H cannot depend on anything else aborting its simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩
⟨Ĥ⟩.

(a) You know that these two facts are true.

(b) You know that these two facts derive a different sequence of
configurations.

∴ any claim that these two sequences of configurations must be identical
is disingenuous at best.

> If a simulation does not match
> the thing it is supposed to be simulating, the simulation is inaccurate.
> You even admit (or have in the past) that H^ applied to <H^> Halts,
> which means the ONLY correct answer for what a simulation of <H^> <H^>
> should show is that it halts. BY DEFINITION.
>
> In many ways I pity you, as it seems you have some ideas that might be
> worth discussing (in a different venue) but you have basically closed
> that door because you are insainly committed you mind to a path that you
> can not support. This seems to indicate that you really don't understand
> what Truth actually is, and are going to suffer the consequences of that.
>
> You have FAILED. You are going to pay for your rebellion to the truth.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this in
>>>>>>>> the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org NNTP
>>>>>>> server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I am
>>>>> sure of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember who)
>>>>> already pointed out this error to you when you were claiming the
>>>>> poster in question was from Germany. That's like assuming that
>>>>> someone must be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly false
>>>> until independently confirmed. That is how first-principles
>>>> reasoning works:
>>>>
>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first principles,” the
>>>> idea is to break down complicated problems into basic elements and
>>>> then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories', since
>>> they are actually wrong.
>>>
>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>
>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not correspond
>> to conventional wisdom
>
> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
> (uninteresting) ways...
>

If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have perfectly summed
up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel

Wittgenstein
Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the
philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of
language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their philosophical
foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of logicians and
mathematicians. He understood these things at the deepest philosophical
level. He was very famous in his day for his knowledge of the philosophy
of logic.

If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to explain the
specific error that Wittgenstein made.

Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and asserts that
Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.

Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:

"Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof." In other words his proof has the exact same basis
as the liar paradox, that he refers to as the "liar antinomy".

I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer" because
it is self-contradictory.

Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar paradox Saul
Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.

Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this in
>>>>>>>>>> the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org
>>>>>>>>> NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I
>>>>>>> am sure of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember who)
>>>>>>> already pointed out this error to you when you were claiming the
>>>>>>> poster in question was from Germany. That's like assuming that
>>>>>>> someone must be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly false
>>>>>> until independently confirmed. That is how first-principles
>>>>>> reasoning works:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first principles,”
>>>>>> the idea is to break down complicated problems into basic elements
>>>>>> and then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories',
>>>>> since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>
>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom because I have corrected the
>>>> errors in the philosophical underpinnings of this conventional
>>>> wisdom. People acting like sheep say that I am wrong because they
>>>> are attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>
>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have is
>>>> gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that they simply do not
>>>> believe me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't conform to the
>>> RULES of the field. They just are not truths, as truths by
>>> definition, conform to reality, and in a logical field, that includes
>>> its rules and definitions.
>>>
>>
>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with themselves
>> then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and must be resolved.
>
> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>
>>
>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT 'Gibberish', they
>>> are pointing out that you are BREAKING THE RULES of the field.
>>
>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this repeating pattern
>> can be recognized by embedded_H even though you yourself already
>> acknowledged that it is an infinitely repeating pattern.
>>
>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>
> Only if H never aborts.
You never notice that this input never halts whether or not it is
aborted because halting is required to reach a final state.

Because you never notice this when it is reiterated countless times you
must either be a liar or have actual brain damage.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On Tue Feb 22 19:10:36 2022 olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> > On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
> >> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, Andr G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, Andr G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 0
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this in
> >>>>>>>> the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
> >>>>>>>

*
Do a "Who is?" on that IP:

country: DE
admin-c: LSWG-RIPE
tech-c: LSWG-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by: LEASEWEB-DE-MNT
mnt-lower: LEASEWEB-DE-MNT
mnt-routes: LEASEWEB-DE-MNT
created: 2011-12-06T14:46:13Z
last-modified: 2015-10-01T15:10:26Z
source: RIPE

person: RIPE Mann
address: Kleyerstrasse 75-87
address: 60326 Frankfurt am Main
address: Germany
phone: +49 69 2475 2860
fax-no: +49 69 2475 2861
nic-hdl: LSWG-RIPE
mnt-by: LEASEWEB-DE-MNT
created: 2012-03-23T15:55:41Z
last-modified: 2017-10-30T22:18:46Z
source: RIPE # Filtered

Olcott wants skin in the game for Putin with Give Ukraine cruise missiles that reach Moscow & Stalingrad. So long as Russia has nothing to worry about a Ukraine offense, Putin continues to invade
On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 11:03:50 PM UTC-6, olcott wrote:

> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
> Arthur

Pete-- I did not think you could see Moscow from Univ Cambridge

On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org
>>>>>>>>>>> NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I
>>>>>>>>> am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember
>>>>>>>>> who) already pointed out this error to you when you were
>>>>>>>>> claiming the poster in question was from Germany. That's like
>>>>>>>>> assuming that someone must be from Mountain View CA since they
>>>>>>>>> use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first principles,”
>>>>>>>> the idea is to break down complicated problems into basic
>>>>>>>> elements and then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories',
>>>>>>> since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom because I have corrected the
>>>>>> errors in the philosophical underpinnings of this conventional
>>>>>> wisdom. People acting like sheep say that I am wrong because they
>>>>>> are attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have is
>>>>>> gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that they simply do not
>>>>>> believe me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't conform to
>>>>> the RULES of the field. They just are not truths, as truths by
>>>>> definition, conform to reality, and in a logical field, that
>>>>> includes its rules and definitions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with themselves
>>>> then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and must be resolved.
>>>
>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT 'Gibberish', they
>>>>> are pointing out that you are BREAKING THE RULES of the field.
>>>>
>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this repeating
>>>> pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even though you yourself
>>>> already acknowledged that it is an infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>
>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>
>>> Only if H never aborts.
>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or not it is
>> aborted because halting is required to reach a final state.
>>
>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated countless times
>> you must either be a liar or have actual brain damage.
>>
>
> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach the final
> state because you give up when your machine aborts it.

As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn

whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
You either have brain damage or are a liar.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this in
>>>>>>>>>> the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org
>>>>>>>>> NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I
>>>>>>> am sure of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember who)
>>>>>>> already pointed out this error to you when you were claiming the
>>>>>>> poster in question was from Germany. That's like assuming that
>>>>>>> someone must be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly false
>>>>>> until independently confirmed. That is how first-principles
>>>>>> reasoning works:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first principles,”
>>>>>> the idea is to break down complicated problems into basic elements
>>>>>> and then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories',
>>>>> since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>
>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>
>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>
>>
>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have perfectly
>> summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>
>>
>> Wittgenstein
>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the
>> philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy
>> of language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>
>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of logicians
>> and mathematicians. He understood these things at the deepest
>> philosophical level. He was very famous in his day for his knowledge
>> of the philosophy of logic.
>>
>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to explain the
>> specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>
>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and asserts that
>> Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>
>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>
>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof." In other words his proof has the exact same
>> basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as the "liar antinomy".
>>
>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer" because
>> it is self-contradictory.
>>
>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar paradox Saul
>> Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>
>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>
>>
>
> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the complexities of
> the problem. B
Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made (his
view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply utterly clueless
about the deep analysis of these things, you only know them by rote.

Wittgenstein is quoted on page 6
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Olcott wants skin in the game for Putin with Give Ukraine cruise missiles that reach Moscow & Stalingrad. So long as Russia has nothing to worry about a Ukraine offense, Putin continues to invade
On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 11:03:50 PM UTC-6, olcott wrote:

> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
> Arthur

Pete-- I did not think you could see Moscow from Univ Cambridge

On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless
>>>>>>>>>>> I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember
>>>>>>>>>>> who) already pointed out this error to you when you were
>>>>>>>>>>> claiming the poster in question was from Germany. That's like
>>>>>>>>>>> assuming that someone must be from Mountain View CA since
>>>>>>>>>>> they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated problems
>>>>>>>>>> into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>>>>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories',
>>>>>>>>> since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom because I have corrected the
>>>>>>>> errors in the philosophical underpinnings of this conventional
>>>>>>>> wisdom. People acting like sheep say that I am wrong because
>>>>>>>> they are attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have is
>>>>>>>> gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that they simply do
>>>>>>>> not believe me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't conform to
>>>>>>> the RULES of the field. They just are not truths, as truths by
>>>>>>> definition, conform to reality, and in a logical field, that
>>>>>>> includes its rules and definitions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with themselves
>>>>>> then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and must be resolved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT 'Gibberish',
>>>>>>> they are pointing out that you are BREAKING THE RULES of the field.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this repeating
>>>>>> pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even though you yourself
>>>>>> already acknowledged that it is an infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>
>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or not it is
>>>> aborted because halting is required to reach a final state.
>>>>
>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated countless times
>>>> you must either be a liar or have actual brain damage.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach the final
>>> state because you give up when your machine aborts it.
>>
>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>
>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>
>
> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from Germany.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like assuming that someone must be from Mountain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated problems
>>>>>>>>>>>> into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>>>>>>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
>>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom because I have corrected the
>>>>>>>>>> errors in the philosophical underpinnings of this conventional
>>>>>>>>>> wisdom. People acting like sheep say that I am wrong because
>>>>>>>>>> they are attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have is
>>>>>>>>>> gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that they simply do
>>>>>>>>>> not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't conform
>>>>>>>>> to the RULES of the field. They just are not truths, as truths
>>>>>>>>> by definition, conform to reality, and in a logical field, that
>>>>>>>>> includes its rules and definitions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with
>>>>>>>> themselves then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and must be
>>>>>>>> resolved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT 'Gibberish',
>>>>>>>>> they are pointing out that you are BREAKING THE RULES of the
>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this repeating
>>>>>>>> pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even though you yourself
>>>>>>>> already acknowledged that it is an infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or not it is
>>>>>> aborted because halting is required to reach a final state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated countless
>>>>>> times you must either be a liar or have actual brain damage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach the final
>>>>> state because you give up when your machine aborts it.
>>>>
>>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>
>>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>
>
> Which means that

On 2/22/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with this
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org
>>>>>>>>>>> NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless I
>>>>>>>>> am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember
>>>>>>>>> who) already pointed out this error to you when you were
>>>>>>>>> claiming the poster in question was from Germany. That's like
>>>>>>>>> assuming that someone must be from Mountain View CA since they
>>>>>>>>> use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first principles,”
>>>>>>>> the idea is to break down complicated problems into basic
>>>>>>>> elements and then reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories',
>>>>>>> since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have perfectly
>>>> summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wittgenstein
>>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the
>>>> philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the
>>>> philosophy of language.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>>
>>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of
>>>> logicians and mathematicians. He understood these things at the
>>>> deepest philosophical level. He was very famous in his day for his
>>>> knowledge of the philosophy of logic.
>>>>
>>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to explain
>>>> the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and asserts
>>>> that Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>>>
>>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>>>
>>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>> undecidability proof." In other words his proof has the exact same
>>>> basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as the "liar antinomy".
>>>>
>>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer"
>>>> because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>
>>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar paradox
>>>> Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>>>
>>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the complexities
>>> of the problem. B
>> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made (his
>> view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply utterly
>> clueless about the deep analysis of these things, you only know them
>> by rote.
>>
>> Wittgenstein  is quoted on page 6
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>
>>
>
> Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.
>
> His Quote that you highlight:
>
> '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
>
> is not a correct statement.
So then what could 'True in Russell's system' mean ???

Note that Haskell Curry is quoted before Wittgenstein has a comparable
notion of what "true in a formal system" means.

Let 𝓣 be such a theory. Then the elementary statements which belong to
𝓣 we shall call the elementary theorems of 𝓣; we also say that these
elementary statements are true for 𝓣. Thus, given 𝓣, an elementary
theorem is an elementary statement which is true...

Olcott's true in a formal system 𝓣 is exactly Curry's elementary
theorems of 𝓣 and statements of 𝓣 derived by applying truth preserving
operations beginning with Curry's elementary theorems of 𝓣 as premises.

When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations you
always necessarily end up with truth.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Olcott wants skin in the game for Putin with Give Ukraine cruise missiles that reach Moscow & Stalingrad. So long as Russia has nothing to worry about a Ukraine offense, Putin continues to invade
On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 11:03:50 PM UTC-6, olcott wrote:

> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
> Arthur

Pete-- I did not think you could see Moscow from Univ Cambridge

On 2/22/2022 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/22/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Germany. That's like assuming that someone must be from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ground up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom because I have corrected
>>>>>>>>>>>> the errors in the philosophical underpinnings of this
>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional wisdom. People acting like sheep say that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong because they are attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they have
>>>>>>>>>>>> is gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that they
>>>>>>>>>>>> simply do not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't conform
>>>>>>>>>>> to the RULES of the field. They just are not truths, as
>>>>>>>>>>> truths by definition, conform to reality, and in a logical
>>>>>>>>>>> field, that includes its rules and definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with
>>>>>>>>>> themselves then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and must
>>>>>>>>>> be resolved.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT
>>>>>>>>>>> 'Gibberish', they are pointing out that you are BREAKING THE
>>>>>>>>>>> RULES of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this repeating
>>>>>>>>>> pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even though you
>>>>>>>>>> yourself already acknowledged that it is an infinitely
>>>>>>>>>> repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or not it
>>>>>>>> is aborted because halting is required to reach a final state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated countless
>>>>>>>> times you must either be a liar or have actual brain damage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach the
>>>>>>> final state because you give up when your machine aborts it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>>>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which means that
>>
>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can't possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn because it is
>> infinitely recursive.
>>
>
> Then H can't have aborted its simulation, so it didn't answer, and it
> FAILED.
_Infinite_Loop()
[00000946](01) 55 push ebp
[00000947](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000949](02) ebfe jmp 00000949
[0000094b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000094c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]

On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the aioe.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims unless
>>>>>>>>>>> I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't remember
>>>>>>>>>>> who) already pointed out this error to you when you were
>>>>>>>>>>> claiming the poster in question was from Germany. That's like
>>>>>>>>>>> assuming that someone must be from Mountain View CA since
>>>>>>>>>>> they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated problems
>>>>>>>>>> into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>>>>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your 'theories',
>>>>>>>>> since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the field.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>>>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have perfectly
>>>>>> summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wittgenstein
>>>>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the
>>>>>> philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the
>>>>>> philosophy of language.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>>>>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of
>>>>>> logicians and mathematicians. He understood these things at the
>>>>>> deepest philosophical level. He was very famous in his day for his
>>>>>> knowledge of the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to explain
>>>>>> the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and asserts
>>>>>> that Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>>> undecidability proof." In other words his proof has the exact same
>>>>>> basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as the "liar antinomy".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer"
>>>>>> because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar paradox
>>>>>> Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the complexities
>>>>> of the problem. B
>>>> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made (his
>>>> view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply utterly
>>>> clueless about the deep analysis of these things, you only know them
>>>> by rote.
>>>>
>>>> Wittgenstein  is quoted on page 6
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.
>>>
>>> His Quote that you highlight:
>>>
>>> '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
>>>
>>> is not a correct statement.
>> So then what could 'True in Russell's system' mean ???
>
> You'd have to ask Wittgenstein that.
>
> You'd also have to ask him why he felt this had any relevance to Gödel's
> Theorem since Gödel's paper doesn't use the expression 'True in
> Russell's System'. In fact, it does not mention or discuss truth at all.
>
> As has been pointed out to you, the Wittgenstein quote you are so
> enamoured with was taken from a set of notebooks which were never
> intended for publication. They were essentially Wittgenstein 'thinking
> out loud', and contain both worthwhile ideas which he later expanded
> upon and published as well as half-baked ideas which he clearly came up
> with before his morning coffee.
>
> We'll never know how Wittgenstein came to view this particular paragraph
> if he later revisited it, but there are two things of which we are
> absolutely certain.
>
> (1) We know the comment was written *BEFORE* Wittgenstein had actually
> read Gödel's paper, so it was based on some second-hand summary of the
> paper which he had encountered.
>
> (2) We know that Wittgenstein *DID* eventually read Gödel's paper, and
> that after reading it he did not make any attempt to publish this
> 'criticism' of Gödel, nor did he mention it again in any of his known
> notebooks.
>
> André
>

Olcott's skin-in-the-game for Putin with --Give Ukraine cruise missiles that reach Moscow & Stalingrad. So long as Russia has nothing to worry about a Ukraine offense, Putin continues to invade
On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 11:03:50 PM UTC-6, olcott wrote:
> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>

Pete-- I did not think you could see Moscow from Univ Cambridge

Are you Halting the production on principles?

On 2/22/2022 11:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-22 22:17, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from Germany.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like assuming that someone must be from Mountain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated problems
>>>>>>>>>>>> into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>>>>>>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
>>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>>>>>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have perfectly
>>>>>>>> summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the
>>>>>>>> philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the
>>>>>>>> philosophy of language.
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>>>>>>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of
>>>>>>>> logicians and mathematicians. He understood these things at the
>>>>>>>> deepest philosophical level. He was very famous in his day for
>>>>>>>> his knowledge of the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to
>>>>>>>> explain the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and asserts
>>>>>>>> that Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof." In other words his proof has the
>>>>>>>> exact same basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as the
>>>>>>>> "liar antinomy".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer"
>>>>>>>> because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar
>>>>>>>> paradox Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the
>>>>>>> complexities of the problem. B
>>>>>> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made
>>>>>> (his view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply
>>>>>> utterly clueless about the deep analysis of these things, you only
>>>>>> know them by rote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wittgenstein  is quoted on page 6
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.
>>>>>
>>>>> His Quote that you highlight:
>>>>>
>>>>> '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
>>>>>
>>>>> is not a correct statement.
>>>> So then what could 'True in Russell's system' mean ???
>>>
>>> You'd have to ask Wittgenstein that.
>>>
>>> You'd also have to ask him why he felt this had any relevance to
>>> Gödel's Theorem since Gödel's paper doesn't use the expression 'True
>>> in Russell's System'. In fact, it does not mention or discuss truth
>>> at all.
>>>
>>> As has been pointed out to you, the Wittgenstein quote you are so
>>> enamoured with was taken from a set of notebooks which were never
>>> intended for publication. They were essentially Wittgenstein
>>> 'thinking out loud', and contain both worthwhile ideas which he later
>>> expanded upon and published as well as half-baked ideas which he
>>> clearly came up with before his morning coffee.
>>>
>>> We'll never know how Wittgenstein came to view this particular
>>> paragraph if he later revisited it, but there are two things of which
>>> we are absolutely certain.
>>>
>>> (1) We know the comment was written *BEFORE* Wittgenstein had
>>> actually read Gödel's paper, so it was based on some second-hand
>>> summary of the paper which he had encountered.
>>>
>>> (2) We know that Wittgenstein *DID* eventually read Gödel's paper,
>>> and that after reading it he did not make any attempt to publish this
>>> 'criticism' of Gödel, nor did he mention it again in any of his known
>>> notebooks.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> My view on Gödel is totally summed up by Wittgenstein.
>> I formed Wittgenstein's complete view long before I ever heard of him.
>
> You don't know what Wittgenstein 'complete view' actually was. No one
> other than Wittgenstein knows this.
>

On 2/23/2022 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/23/22 12:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from Germany.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like assuming that someone must be from Mountain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated problems
>>>>>>>>>>>> into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>>>>>>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
>>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>>>>>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have perfectly
>>>>>>>> summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the
>>>>>>>> philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the
>>>>>>>> philosophy of language.
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>>>>>>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of
>>>>>>>> logicians and mathematicians. He understood these things at the
>>>>>>>> deepest philosophical level. He was very famous in his day for
>>>>>>>> his knowledge of the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to
>>>>>>>> explain the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and asserts
>>>>>>>> that Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof." In other words his proof has the
>>>>>>>> exact same basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as the
>>>>>>>> "liar antinomy".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer"
>>>>>>>> because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar
>>>>>>>> paradox Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the
>>>>>>> complexities of the problem. B
>>>>>> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made
>>>>>> (his view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply
>>>>>> utterly clueless about the deep analysis of these things, you only
>>>>>> know them by rote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wittgenstein  is quoted on page 6
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.
>>>>>
>>>>> His Quote that you highlight:
>>>>>
>>>>> '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
>>>>>
>>>>> is not a correct statement.
>>>> So then what could 'True in Russell's system' mean ???
>>>
>>> You'd have to ask Wittgenstein that.
>>>
>>> You'd also have to ask him why he felt this had any relevance to
>>> Gödel's Theorem since Gödel's paper doesn't use the expression 'True
>>> in Russell's System'. In fact, it does not mention or discuss truth
>>> at all.
>>>
>>> As has been pointed out to you, the Wittgenstein quote you are so
>>> enamoured with was taken from a set of notebooks which were never
>>> intended for publication. They were essentially Wittgenstein
>>> 'thinking out loud', and contain both worthwhile ideas which he later
>>> expanded upon and published as well as half-baked ideas which he
>>> clearly came up with before his morning coffee.
>>>
>>> We'll never know how Wittgenstein came to view this particular
>>> paragraph if he later revisited it, but there are two things of which
>>> we are absolutely certain.
>>>
>>> (1) We know the comment was written *BEFORE* Wittgenstein had
>>> actually read Gödel's paper, so it was based on some second-hand
>>> summary of the paper which he had encountered.
>>>
>>> (2) We know that Wittgenstein *DID* eventually read Gödel's paper,
>>> and that after reading it he did not make any attempt to publish this
>>> 'criticism' of Gödel, nor did he mention it again in any of his known
>>> notebooks.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> My view on Gödel is totally summed up by Wittgenstein.
>> I formed Wittgenstein's complete view long before I ever heard of him.
>>
>> Note that Haskell Curry is quoted before Wittgenstein has a comparable
>> notion of what "true in a formal system" means.
>>
>> Let 𝓣 be such a theory. Then the elementary statements which belong
>> to 𝓣 we shall call the elementary theorems of 𝓣; we also say that
>> these elementary statements are true for 𝓣. Thus, given 𝓣, an
>> elementary theorem is an elementary statement which is true...
>>
>> Olcott's true in a formal system 𝓣 is exactly Curry's elementary
>> theorems of 𝓣 and statements of 𝓣 derived by applying truth
>> preserving operations beginning with Curry's elementary theorems of 𝓣
>> as premises.
>>
>> When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations
>> you always necessarily end up with truth.
>>
>
> And if YOUR concept of what Truth means doesn't match what someone else
> is using, it doesn't mean you get to force your definition onto their
> work. That a Fallacy And Invalid Logic, i.e. FAIL.
>

On 2/23/2022 1:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-23 08:13, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 11:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-22 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Germany. That's like assuming that someone must be from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ground up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>>>>>>>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have
>>>>>>>>>> perfectly summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic,
>>>>>>>>>> the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the
>>>>>>>>>> philosophy of language.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of
>>>>>>>>>> logicians and mathematicians. He understood these things at
>>>>>>>>>> the deepest philosophical level. He was very famous in his day
>>>>>>>>>> for his knowledge of the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to
>>>>>>>>>> explain the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and
>>>>>>>>>> asserts that Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof." In other words his proof has
>>>>>>>>>> the exact same basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as
>>>>>>>>>> the "liar antinomy".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer"
>>>>>>>>>> because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar
>>>>>>>>>> paradox Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the
>>>>>>>>> complexities of the problem. B
>>>>>>>> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made
>>>>>>>> (his view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply
>>>>>>>> utterly clueless about the deep analysis of these things, you
>>>>>>>> only know them by rote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein  is quoted on page 6
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His Quote that you highlight:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> '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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is not a correct statement.
>>>>>> So then what could 'True in Russell's system' mean ???
>>>>>
>>>>> You'd have to ask Wittgenstein that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You'd also have to ask him why he felt this had any relevance to
>>>>> Gödel's Theorem since Gödel's paper doesn't use the expression
>>>>> 'True in Russell's System'. In fact, it does not mention or discuss
>>>>> truth at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> As has been pointed out to you, the Wittgenstein quote you are so
>>>>> enamoured with was taken from a set of notebooks which were never
>>>>> intended for publication. They were essentially Wittgenstein
>>>>> 'thinking out loud', and contain both worthwhile ideas which he
>>>>> later expanded upon and published as well as half-baked ideas which
>>>>> he clearly came up with before his morning coffee.
>>>>>
>>>>> We'll never know how Wittgenstein came to view this particular
>>>>> paragraph if he later revisited it, but there are two things of
>>>>> which we are absolutely certain.
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) We know the comment was written *BEFORE* Wittgenstein had
>>>>> actually read Gödel's paper, so it was based on some second-hand
>>>>> summary of the paper which he had encountered.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) We know that Wittgenstein *DID* eventually read Gödel's paper,
>>>>> and that after reading it he did not make any attempt to publish
>>>>> this 'criticism' of Gödel, nor did he mention it again in any of
>>>>> his known notebooks.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My view on Gödel is totally summed up by Wittgenstein.
>>>> I formed Wittgenstein's complete view long before I ever heard of him.
>>>
>>> You don't know what Wittgenstein 'complete view' actually was. No one
>>> other than Wittgenstein knows this.
>>>
>>
>> Because I formed this same view myself independently of Wittgenstein I
>> can say that his quoted words in my paper form a 100% complete
>> rebuttal that Gödel found a sentence that is both true and unprovable.
>> It is simply unprovable because it is untrue.
>
> It is quite possible for two people to independently reach the same
> wrong conclusion. So the above hardly constitutes an argument.
>

On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:57:35 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2022 1:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> > On 2022-02-23 08:13, olcott wrote:
> >> On 2/22/2022 11:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>> On 2022-02-22 22:17, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Germany. That's like assuming that someone must be from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That is how
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ground up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> field.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong. And wrong in very dumb
> >>>>>>>>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have
> >>>>>>>>>> perfectly summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein
> >>>>>>>>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic,
> >>>>>>>>>> the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the
> >>>>>>>>>> philosophy of language.
> >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
> >>>>>>>>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of
> >>>>>>>>>> logicians and mathematicians. He understood these things at
> >>>>>>>>>> the deepest philosophical level. He was very famous in his day
> >>>>>>>>>> for his knowledge of the philosophy of logic.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to
> >>>>>>>>>> explain the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and
> >>>>>>>>>> asserts that Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
> >>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof." In other words his proof has
> >>>>>>>>>> the exact same basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as
> >>>>>>>>>> the "liar antinomy".
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer"
> >>>>>>>>>> because it is self-contradictory.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar
> >>>>>>>>>> paradox Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the
> >>>>>>>>> complexities of the problem. B
> >>>>>>>> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made
> >>>>>>>> (his view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply
> >>>>>>>> utterly clueless about the deep analysis of these things, you
> >>>>>>>> only know them by rote.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Wittgenstein is quoted on page 6
> >>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> His Quote that you highlight:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> '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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> is not a correct statement.
> >>>>>> So then what could 'True in Russell's system' mean ???
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You'd have to ask Wittgenstein that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You'd also have to ask him why he felt this had any relevance to
> >>>>> Gödel's Theorem since Gödel's paper doesn't use the expression
> >>>>> 'True in Russell's System'. In fact, it does not mention or discuss
> >>>>> truth at all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As has been pointed out to you, the Wittgenstein quote you are so
> >>>>> enamoured with was taken from a set of notebooks which were never
> >>>>> intended for publication. They were essentially Wittgenstein
> >>>>> 'thinking out loud', and contain both worthwhile ideas which he
> >>>>> later expanded upon and published as well as half-baked ideas which
> >>>>> he clearly came up with before his morning coffee.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We'll never know how Wittgenstein came to view this particular
> >>>>> paragraph if he later revisited it, but there are two things of
> >>>>> which we are absolutely certain.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (1) We know the comment was written *BEFORE* Wittgenstein had
> >>>>> actually read Gödel's paper, so it was based on some second-hand
> >>>>> summary of the paper which he had encountered.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (2) We know that Wittgenstein *DID* eventually read Gödel's paper,
> >>>>> and that after reading it he did not make any attempt to publish
> >>>>> this 'criticism' of Gödel, nor did he mention it again in any of
> >>>>> his known notebooks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> André
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> My view on Gödel is totally summed up by Wittgenstein.
> >>>> I formed Wittgenstein's complete view long before I ever heard of him.
> >>>
> >>> You don't know what Wittgenstein 'complete view' actually was. No one
> >>> other than Wittgenstein knows this.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Because I formed this same view myself independently of Wittgenstein I
> >> can say that his quoted words in my paper form a 100% complete
> >> rebuttal that Gödel found a sentence that is both true and unprovable.
> >> It is simply unprovable because it is untrue.
> >
> > It is quite possible for two people to independently reach the same
> > wrong conclusion. So the above hardly constitutes an argument.
> >
>
> It is very easy to see that true and unprovable is impossible once one
> comprehends the self evident truth regrading how analytic truth itself
> actually works.
>
> Most people "know" that a statement is true on the basis that someone
> that they trust told them this statement is true. Most people here
> "know" that I must be wrong simply because they trust that Gödel is
> correct.
> >>> What you are really saying is that you formed some view and then
> >>> interpreted one of Wittgenstein's remarks in terms of that view.
> >>>
> >>>> Note that Haskell Curry is quoted before Wittgenstein has a
> >>>> comparable notion of what "true in a formal system" means.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let 𝓣 be such a theory. Then the elementary statements which belong
> >>>> to 𝓣 we shall call the elementary theorems of 𝓣; we also say that
> >>>> these elementary statements are true for 𝓣. Thus, given 𝓣, an
> >>>> elementary theorem is an elementary statement which is true...
> >>>>
> >>>> Olcott's true in a formal system 𝓣 is exactly Curry's elementary
> >>>> theorems of 𝓣 and statements of 𝓣 derived by applying truth
> >>>> preserving operations beginning with Curry's elementary theorems of
> >>>> 𝓣 as premises.
> >>>>
> >>>> When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations
> >>>> you always necessarily end up with truth.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Gödel, since his theorem was
> >>> not concerned with truth and made no mention of truth at all.
> >>>
> >>> André
> >>
> >> It has everything to do with all undecidable propositions.
> >>
> >> Undecidable propositions are simply not truth bearers
> >
> > The above claim is simply false. It is not consistent with the standard
> > definitions of 'undecidable' and 'truth bearer'.
>
> It is consistent with the way that <truth> really works, thus
> superseding and overriding all of the misconceptions that seem to
> contradict it.
>
> >
> > Moreover, it also doesn't follow from your above claim that "When you
> > start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations you always
> > necessarily end up with truth." So you're basically presenting a
> > non-sequitur.
> >
>
> Something that 100% perfectly logically follows is utterly ridiculously
> characterized as non-sequitur.
> > > in the same way that the following sentence is neither true nor false:
> > > "What time is it?"
> >
> > That sentence is not a proposition. Gödels paper is concerned with
> > undecidable *propositions*. And it isn't concerned with natural language
> > at all.
> >
>
> I wanted to make a very clear example of an expression of language that
> very obviously cannot be resolved to true or false. Example form formal
> language that are not truth bearers are placed in the incorrect category
> of undecidable.
>
> Flibble is correct in that the reason these things are not properly
> resolved is category error. When one assumes a term-of-the-art
> definition that has hidden incoherence then these terms-of-the-art make
> their own error inexpressible.
>
> The strong version, or linguistic determinism, says that language
> determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine
> cognitive categories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
> >> All expressions of formal or natural language that apply only truth
> >> preserving operations beginning with a set of premises known to be
> >> true (such as Haskell Curry's elementary theorems) are sound, else
> >> unsound.
> >
> > Oh dear. You really are confused. You're making numerous category errors
> > above. Soundness is not a property of arguments, not propositions (which
> > is what Gödel is concerned with).
>
> I will use more generic language that has not been overridden idiomatic
> terms-of-the-art meanings.
>
> expressions of language that were derived by applying truth preserving
> operations to expressions of language known to be true necessarily
> derive true expressions of language.
>
> > And 'expressions of formal or natural
> > language' don't 'apply truth preserving operations'.
> >
>
> If I have a cat then I have an animal applies the truth preserving
> operation Is-A-Type_Of(cat, animal) on the basis of a knowledge ontology
> that specifies all of the general knowledge.
> >> All expressions of formal or natural language that apply only truth
> >> preserving operations beginning with a set of premises are valid, else
> >> invalid.
> >
> > That sentence is incoherent.
> >
>
> If one applies only truth preserving operations to a set of true
> expressions of language then true expressions of language are derived.
>
> If one applies only truth preserving operations to a set of expressions
> of language then logically entailed expressions of language are derived.
> >> valid reasoning requires conclusions to be a necessary consequence of
> >> the premises.
> >
> > Which is not contradicted by Gödel. He would agree with this.
> >
> > André
>
> The key mistake is that he believes that his sentence is true and
> unprovable which is analogous to a purebred cat that is a kind of dog.
> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/23/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/23/22 6:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/22/22 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/22/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this in the header that will get rid of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you were claiming the poster in question was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Germany. That's like assuming that someone must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creative possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first principles,” the idea is to break down
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated problems into basic elements and then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not correspond to conventional wisdom because I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected the errors in the philosophical underpinnings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this conventional wisdom. People acting like sheep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that I am wrong because they are attached to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have is gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they simply do not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conform to the RULES of the field. They just are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truths, as truths by definition, conform to reality, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a logical field, that includes its rules and definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Gibberish', they are pointing out that you are BREAKING
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE RULES of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeating pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though you yourself already acknowledged that it is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or not
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is aborted because halting is required to reach a final
>>>>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated
>>>>>>>>>>>> countless times you must either be a liar or have actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> brain damage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach the
>>>>>>>>>>> final state because you give up when your machine aborts it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which means that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can't possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn because it
>>>>>> is infinitely recursive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then H can't have aborted its simulation, so it didn't answer, and
>>>>> it FAILED.
>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>
>>> This doesn't present the pattern you just claim, so you just
>>> committed that fallacy of the Red Herring.
>>>
>>
>> If you can't tell that the above is very obviously an infinite loop
>> you are far too ignorant to have any chance of providing anything
>> close to an accurate review of my work.
>>
>
> You keep up that Fallacious And Invalid Logic and some day someone might
> beleive you.
>
> I NEVER said that it is impossible to detect SOME infinite loops.
>
> I said that H can't correctly detect an infinite loop in H^ and abort
> its simulation to report it, because in doing so H breaks the loop so it
> doesn't exist.

On 2/23/2022 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/23/22 10:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 11:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-22 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Germany. That's like assuming that someone must be from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ground up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>>>>>>>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have
>>>>>>>>>> perfectly summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic,
>>>>>>>>>> the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the
>>>>>>>>>> philosophy of language.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of
>>>>>>>>>> logicians and mathematicians. He understood these things at
>>>>>>>>>> the deepest philosophical level. He was very famous in his day
>>>>>>>>>> for his knowledge of the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to
>>>>>>>>>> explain the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and
>>>>>>>>>> asserts that Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof." In other words his proof has
>>>>>>>>>> the exact same basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as
>>>>>>>>>> the "liar antinomy".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer"
>>>>>>>>>> because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar
>>>>>>>>>> paradox Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the
>>>>>>>>> complexities of the problem. B
>>>>>>>> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made
>>>>>>>> (his view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply
>>>>>>>> utterly clueless about the deep analysis of these things, you
>>>>>>>> only know them by rote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein  is quoted on page 6
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His Quote that you highlight:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> '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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is not a correct statement.
>>>>>> So then what could 'True in Russell's system' mean ???
>>>>>
>>>>> You'd have to ask Wittgenstein that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You'd also have to ask him why he felt this had any relevance to
>>>>> Gödel's Theorem since Gödel's paper doesn't use the expression
>>>>> 'True in Russell's System'. In fact, it does not mention or discuss
>>>>> truth at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> As has been pointed out to you, the Wittgenstein quote you are so
>>>>> enamoured with was taken from a set of notebooks which were never
>>>>> intended for publication. They were essentially Wittgenstein
>>>>> 'thinking out loud', and contain both worthwhile ideas which he
>>>>> later expanded upon and published as well as half-baked ideas which
>>>>> he clearly came up with before his morning coffee.
>>>>>
>>>>> We'll never know how Wittgenstein came to view this particular
>>>>> paragraph if he later revisited it, but there are two things of
>>>>> which we are absolutely certain.
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) We know the comment was written *BEFORE* Wittgenstein had
>>>>> actually read Gödel's paper, so it was based on some second-hand
>>>>> summary of the paper which he had encountered.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) We know that Wittgenstein *DID* eventually read Gödel's paper,
>>>>> and that after reading it he did not make any attempt to publish
>>>>> this 'criticism' of Gödel, nor did he mention it again in any of
>>>>> his known notebooks.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My view on Gödel is totally summed up by Wittgenstein.
>>>> I formed Wittgenstein's complete view long before I ever heard of him.
>>>
>>> You don't know what Wittgenstein 'complete view' actually was. No one
>>> other than Wittgenstein knows this.
>>>
>>
>> Because I formed this same view myself independently of Wittgenstein I
>> can say that his quoted words in my paper form a 100% complete
>> rebuttal that Gödel found a sentence that is both true and unprovable.
>> It is simply unprovable because it is untrue.
>>
>>> What you are really saying is that you formed some view and then
>>> interpreted one of Wittgenstein's remarks in terms of that view.
>>>
>>>> Note that Haskell Curry is quoted before Wittgenstein has a
>>>> comparable notion of what "true in a formal system" means.
>>>>
>>>> Let 𝓣 be such a theory. Then the elementary statements which belong
>>>> to 𝓣 we shall call the elementary theorems of 𝓣; we also say that
>>>> these elementary statements are true for 𝓣. Thus, given 𝓣, an
>>>> elementary theorem is an elementary statement which is true...
>>>>
>>>> Olcott's true in a formal system 𝓣 is exactly Curry's elementary
>>>> theorems of 𝓣 and statements of 𝓣 derived by applying truth
>>>> preserving operations beginning with Curry's elementary theorems of
>>>> 𝓣 as premises.
>>>>
>>>> When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations
>>>> you always necessarily end up with truth.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Gödel, since his theorem was
>>> not concerned with truth and made no mention of truth at all.
>>>
>>> André
>>
>> It has everything to do with all undecidable propositions.
>>
>> Undecidable propositions are simply not truth bearers in the same way
>> that the following sentence is neither true nor false: "What time is it?"
>
> Excpet that they are. The Computation H^ applied to <H^> will ALWAYS
> either Halt or Not Halt, and the exact value is determinable for any
> given H if it answers the question H <H^> <H^>.
>
> Thus it IS a Truth Bearer.
>

General Nakasone has Zelos Malum figured out the trajectory of cruise missiles from Ukraine to Moscow and Stalingrad-- so says Kibo Parry Moron, the 30 year stalker.
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 4:44:21 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>Re: Crank
>can't grasp even the simplest of concepts.
>"antiscience"
> fails at math and science:

> you complain about Zelos attacking you while you attack him right
> back. Do you think it's OK for you to attack Zelos but it's not OK for
> Zelos to attack you? Besides, you need to show some respect for your
> betters.
>

Kibo worried about Russian tanks in Sweden.

> Other than the language it wasn't an attack. He simply informed you that
> we have a couple billion years before the sun goes red giant, and I'm
> sure by then either we humans will have the technology to travel to a
> better place or we will have made ourselves extinct. Either way it
> doesn't matter now except we must avoid making ourselves extinct.
>

Kibo saying it was a "false flag attack on Stockholm"

> Also just because you fooled yourself into thinking we have much less
> time, actual scientists know better, and Zelos believes in science, not
> cranks with unproven bizarre ideas.

Kibo saying that his 938 is 12% short of 945 is what the West wants, desires and prays for-- as normal education.

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```.....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'...          ..-''    '     '  I am Kibo Parry Moroney, the grand failure of science with my 938 is 12% short of 945, and my ellipse is a conic when it never was, and my idiocy of thinking geothermal is not radioactivity but is recycled solar fossil. I stalk on Internet because NSF pays a million dollars and is 5 times the salary of those professors stuck with actually teaching science and all I do is attack dog style in sci.math, sci.physics. And Barry Shein loves to whisper in my ear how 10 OR 2 =12 with AND as subtraction
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``.........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'

..
.- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
.' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
. ' ` `. |
. '. '
. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
.' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '
; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am Kibo Parry M.. a shit streaked arsewipe of science, a complete failure of math and physics, yet I stalk these newsgroups every day of the year for the past 28 years nonstop, because I am Kibo Parry the moron of science with my fool's proof ellipse and my 938 is 12% short of 945. I was trained at Rensselaer Polytech and that is where I picked up my "moron failure in science". And NSF Dr.. Panchanathan pays me handsomely for 938 is 12% short of 945, for the NSF has its head up its arse for 28 years now, especially when I kibo posted that geothermal was stored sunshine and not radioactive decay that AP corrected me on.
` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
...'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'

Kibo, isn't it time you changed your underwear, your smell is clear across the nation.


On 2/23/2022 6:52 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-23 13:57, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2022 1:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-23 08:13, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-22 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>
> <snippage
>
>>>> Because I formed this same view myself independently of Wittgenstein
>>>> I can say that his quoted words in my paper form a 100% complete
>>>> rebuttal that Gödel found a sentence that is both true and
>>>> unprovable. It is simply unprovable because it is untrue.
>>>
>>> It is quite possible for two people to independently reach the same
>>> wrong conclusion. So the above hardly constitutes an argument.
>>>
>>
>> It is very easy to see that true and unprovable is impossible once one
>> comprehends the self evident truth regrading how analytic truth itself
>> actually works.
>
> Which 'self-evident truth' is that?

The actual knowledge ontology structure of the body of analytic knowledge.

> Note that you have a bad track
> record of assuming that things which are demonstrably false are
> 'self-evidently true'.
>

I do use some terminology somewhat inconsistently with its conventional
meaning to overcome [strong linguistic determinism] that makes the ideas
that I need to express otherwise inexpressible.

strong version, or linguistic determinism, says that language determines
thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive
categories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

> Note also that Gödel was not talking about analytic truth. He was
> talking about theories of arithmetic.

The body of analytic truth encompasses all of mathematics and logic and
only excludes knowledge that can only be validated by input from the
sense organs.

> The analytic/synthetic distinction
> is one made when discussing philosophy of language which deals with
> entirely different questions than arithmetic does.
>

The notion of analytic truth is the foundation of all mathematics and
logic.

> Different fields often use similar terms with subtly different meanings.
> You can't just assume that it is possible to import concepts from one
> field to another.
>

If one field overloads the term "true" to include expressions of
language that are not true, then it errs.

>
>> Most people "know" that a statement is true on the basis that someone
>> that they trust told them this statement is true. Most people here
>> "know" that I must be wrong simply because they trust that Gödel is
>> correct.
>
> Or, more likely, because they actually read the proof (which you have
> admitted to not having done) and found it compelling.
>

If its conclusion is incorrect then all of the steps can be ignored.

>>>>> What you are really saying is that you formed some view and then
>>>>> interpreted one of Wittgenstein's remarks in terms of that view.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that Haskell Curry is quoted before Wittgenstein has a
>>>>>> comparable notion of what "true in a formal system" means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let 𝓣 be such a theory. Then the elementary statements which
>>>>>> belong to 𝓣 we shall call the elementary theorems of 𝓣; we also
>>>>>> say that these elementary statements are true for 𝓣. Thus, given
>>>>>> 𝓣, an elementary theorem is an elementary statement which is true...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Olcott's true in a formal system 𝓣 is exactly Curry's elementary
>>>>>> theorems of 𝓣 and statements of 𝓣 derived by applying truth
>>>>>> preserving operations beginning with Curry's elementary theorems
>>>>>> of 𝓣 as premises.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving
>>>>>> operations you always necessarily end up with truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Gödel, since his theorem
>>>>> was not concerned with truth and made no mention of truth at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>
>>>> It has everything to do with all undecidable propositions.
>>>>
>>>> Undecidable propositions are simply not truth bearers
>>>
>>> The above claim is simply false. It is not consistent with the
>>> standard definitions of 'undecidable' and 'truth bearer'.
>>
>> It is consistent with the way that <truth> really works, thus
>> superseding and overriding all of the misconceptions that seem to
>> contradict it.
>
> I have no reason to believe that you have any understanding of how truth
> 'really works'.
>

Analytic truth is nothing more that a semantically connected set of
expressions of language each one known to be true.

>>>
>>> Moreover, it also doesn't follow from your above claim that "When you
>>> start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations you
>>> always necessarily end up with truth." So you're basically presenting
>>> a non-sequitur.
>>>
>>
>> Something that 100% perfectly logically follows is utterly
>> ridiculously characterized as non-sequitur.
>
> If you think the latter follows from the former you then you need a
> course in remedial logic.

If you start with expressions of language that are known to be true
(such as Haskell Curry's elementary theorems) and only apply truth
preserving operations you don't end up with peanut butter.

>>
>>>  > in the same way that the following sentence is neither true nor
>>> false:
>>>  > "What time is it?"
>>>
>>> That sentence is not a proposition. Gödels paper is concerned with
>>> undecidable *propositions*. And it isn't concerned with natural
>>> language at all.
>>>
>>
>> I wanted to make a very clear example of an expression of language
>> that very obviously cannot be resolved to true or false. Example form
>> formal language that are not truth bearers are placed in the incorrect
>> category of undecidable.
>
> There is no category in formal systems analogous to interrogatives.

There is one yet not one that you are aware of.

This is not my idea:
Questions are merely propositions with a missing piece.

> You seem to not grasp the distinction between ontology and epistemology.
> Whether we can *determine* whether a statement is true or false is an
> epistemological issue which has no bearing at all on whether the
> statement actually *is* true or false.
>

In computer science and information science, an ontology encompasses a
representation, formal naming, and definition of the categories,
properties, and relations between the concepts, data, and entities that
substantiate one, many, or all domains of discourse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

>> Flibble is correct in that the reason these things are not properly
>> resolved is category error. When one assumes a term-of-the-art
>> definition that has hidden incoherence then these terms-of-the-art
>> make their own error inexpressible.
>>
>> The strong version, or linguistic determinism, says that language
>> determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine
>> cognitive categories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
>
> Both a mischaracterization and utterly irrelevant.
>

A theory T is incomplete if and only if there is some sentence φ such
that (T ⊬ φ) and (T ⊬ ¬φ).

The above simply ignores the case where a syntactically correct
expression of a formal language is unprovable simply because at the
semantic level it is self-contradictory.

>>>> All expressions of formal or natural language that apply only truth
>>>> preserving operations beginning with a set of premises known to be
>>>> true (such as Haskell Curry's elementary theorems) are sound, else
>>>> unsound.
>>>
>>> Oh dear. You really are confused. You're making numerous category
>>> errors above. Soundness is not a property of arguments, not
>>> propositions (which is what Gödel is concerned with).
>>
>> I will use more generic language that has not been overridden
>> idiomatic terms-of-the-art meanings.
>>
>> expressions of language that were derived by applying truth preserving
>> operations to expressions of language known to be true necessarily
>> derive true expressions of language.
>>
>>> And 'expressions of formal or natural language' don't 'apply truth
>>> preserving operations'.
>>>
>>
>> If I have a cat then I have an animal applies the truth preserving
>> operation Is-A-Type_Of(cat, animal) on the basis of a knowledge
>> ontology that specifies all of the general knowledge.
>>
>>>> All expressions of formal or natural language that apply only truth
>>>> preserving operations beginning with a set of premises are valid,
>>>> else invalid.
>>>
>>> That sentence is incoherent.
>>>
>>
>> If one applies only truth preserving operations to a set of true
>> expressions of language then true expressions of language are derived.
>
> If one starts with true premises and uses valid deductive rules one is
> guaranteed to arrive at true conclusions.
> That does *NOT* entail that
> every true statement can be derived from some set of axioms using valid
> deductive rules.
>

On 2/23/2022 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/23/22 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/23/22 6:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/22/22 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages with this in the header that will get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rid of them: 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you were claiming the poster in question was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Germany. That's like assuming that someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is how first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creative possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from first principles,” the idea is to break down
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated problems into basic elements and then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not correspond to conventional wisdom because I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have corrected the errors in the philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underpinnings of this conventional wisdom. People
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acting like sheep say that I am wrong because they are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attached to the conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have is gibberish double talk anchored in the fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they simply do not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conform to the RULES of the field. They just are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truths, as truths by definition, conform to reality,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in a logical field, that includes its rules and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Gibberish', they are pointing out that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BREAKING THE RULES of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeating pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though you yourself already acknowledged that it is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not it is aborted because halting is required to reach a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countless times you must either be a liar or have actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brain damage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the final state because you give up when your machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which means that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can't possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn because it
>>>>>>>> is infinitely recursive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then H can't have aborted its simulation, so it didn't answer,
>>>>>>> and it FAILED.
>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
>>>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>>>
>>>>> This doesn't present the pattern you just claim, so you just
>>>>> committed that fallacy of the Red Herring.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you can't tell that the above is very obviously an infinite loop
>>>> you are far too ignorant to have any chance of providing anything
>>>> close to an accurate review of my work.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You keep up that Fallacious And Invalid Logic and some day someone
>>> might beleive you.
>>>
>>> I NEVER said that it is impossible to detect SOME infinite loops.
>>>
>>> I said that H can't correctly detect an infinite loop in H^ and abort
>>> its simulation to report it, because in doing so H breaks the loop so
>>> it doesn't exist.
>>
>> That is freaking nuts.
>>
>> Just like a compiler that stops compiling when there are compile errors
>> a halt decider stops simulating when there are infinite execution
>> errors. You can't be that stupid so you must be a liar.
>>
>
> Your problem is you just don't understand what a Turing Machine is.
>
> H only partially simulates what the machine does.