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.
On 7/15/2024 3:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-11 13:51:47 +0000, olcott said:
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.
That is included in my "not shown above", in particular the word "proofs". >>
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.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 159:17:40 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,056 |
| Messages: | 6,416,491 |