On 7/11/24 9:51 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/11/2024 2:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-10 13:58:42 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/8/24 8:28 PM, olcott wrote:
Every expression of language that cannot be proven
or refuted by any finite or infinite sequence of
truth preserving operations connecting it to its
meaning specified as a finite expression of language
is rejected.
So?
Tarski's x like Godel's G are know to be true by an infinite
sequence of truth preserving operations.
Every time that you affirm your above error you prove
yourself to be a liar.
It is quite obvious that you are the liar. You have not shown any error
above.
Richard said the infinite proofs derive knowledge
and that infinite proofs never derive knowledge.
Nipe, just more of your lies
On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Tarski's x like Godel's G are know to be true by an
infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
On 7/8/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
No, infinite "proofs" determine TRUTH, not knowledge.
What he mean was that finite meta-analysis can be a
proxy for an infinite proof.
Right, the fact that in the meta, there is a finite proof of a
transferable property to PA, gives us the knowledge that G is true in PA
as well as MM. But still leaves us without a proof IN PA of the statement.
You just don't understand the nature for Formal Logic and meta-systems.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)