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.

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