On 7/16/2024 8:54 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/16/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/16/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/16/2024 6:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/15/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/15/24 10:06 AM, olcott wrote:
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.
;
We cannot know that anything is true by an infinite
sequence of truth preserving operations as Richard
falsely claims above.
You are just mixing up your words because you don't understd that >>>>>>> wrores. amnd just making yourself into a LIAR.
Our KNOWLEDGE that the statement is true, comes from a finite
proof in the meta system.
Thus zero knowledge comes from the infinite proof
You spelled "known" incorrectly as "know" yet claimed
that knowledge comes form an infinite proof.
You can't even pay attention to your own words ???
There is no "infinite proof".
On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
*know to be true*
*know to be true*
*know to be true*
*know to be true*
*know to be true*
by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
Nothing can ever be known to be true
by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
Right, you just don't parse it right because you don't understand
english.
the "by" refers to the closer referent.
it is KNOW TO BE
TRUE BY an infinite sequence of truth persevng operations.
The infinite sequence establish what makes it True, not what make the
truth known.
In other words when you are caught with your hand in the
cookie jar stealing cookies you deny:
(a) That your hand is in the jar
(b) That there is a jar
(c) That there are any cookies
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.
;
Nothing is known to be true by an infinite sequence of truth
preserving operations.
On 7/16/2024 10:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/16/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/16/2024 8:54 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/16/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/16/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/16/2024 6:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/15/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/15/24 10:06 AM, olcott wrote:
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.
;
We cannot know that anything is true by an infinite
sequence of truth preserving operations as Richard
falsely claims above.
You are just mixing up your words because you don't understd >>>>>>>>> that wrores. amnd just making yourself into a LIAR.
Our KNOWLEDGE that the statement is true, comes from a finite >>>>>>>>> proof in the meta system.
Thus zero knowledge comes from the infinite proof
You spelled "known" incorrectly as "know" yet claimed
that knowledge comes form an infinite proof.
You can't even pay attention to your own words ???
There is no "infinite proof".
On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
*know to be true*
*know to be true*
*know to be true*
*know to be true*
*know to be true*
by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
Nothing can ever be known to be true
by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
Right, you just don't parse it right because you don't understand
english.
the "by" refers to the closer referent.
it is KNOW TO BE
TRUE BY an infinite sequence of truth persevng operations.
The infinite sequence establish what makes it True, not what make
the truth known.
In other words when you are caught with your hand in the
cookie jar stealing cookies you deny:
(a) That your hand is in the jar
(b) That there is a jar
(c) That there are any cookies
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.
;
Nothing is known to be true by an infinite sequence of truth
preserving operations.
Depends how you parse the sentence.
Godel's G, is known to be True (from the proof in MM), and that truth
is created in PA by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
So, Godel's G is true by an infinite sequence of truth preserving
operations in PA, and we know that truth by a finite proof in MM and
that knowledge can be shown to transfer to PA.
Thus, Godels G is know to be (true by an infinte sequence of
operations in PA).
That is incorrect. If for example the truth of the Goldbach conjecture
was known to be true or false by some finite sequence this does not
make it known by any infinite sequence.
And those parenthesis are redundant, as the preposition by naturally
attaches to the closest reasonable clause, which is the truth, and not
the knowledge.
Thus, you are just showing a major lack of understanding of how
English works, so your claims of "true by the meaning of words"
becomes suspect, as clearly you don't understand how to build up the
correct meaning of words.
Of course, thsi also seems to be INTENTIONAL, as a means to try to
slip DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS in, just showing that you are an
intentionally pathological liar.
Sorry to have to break it to you like that, but you are just showing
that you have wasted your life on the lies you convinced yourself to
beleive.
You can't even catch your own direct contradictions
thus proving your critique of my work is not competent.
On 7/16/2024 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/16/2024 8:54 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/16/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/16/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/16/2024 6:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/15/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/15/24 10:06 AM, olcott wrote:
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.
;
We cannot know that anything is true by an infinite
sequence of truth preserving operations as Richard
falsely claims above.
You are just mixing up your words because you don't understd
that wrores. amnd just making yourself into a LIAR.
Our KNOWLEDGE that the statement is true, comes from a finite
proof in the meta system.
Thus zero knowledge comes from the infinite proof
You spelled "known" incorrectly as "know" yet claimed
that knowledge comes form an infinite proof.
You can't even pay attention to your own words ???
There is no "infinite proof".
On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
*know to be true*
*know to be true*
*know to be true*
*know to be true*
*know to be true*
by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
Nothing can ever be known to be true
by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
Right, you just don't parse it right because you don't understand
english.
the "by" refers to the closer referent.
it is KNOW TO BE
TRUE BY an infinite sequence of truth persevng operations.
The infinite sequence establish what makes it True, not what make
the truth known.
In other words when you are caught with your hand in the
cookie jar stealing cookies you deny:
(a) That your hand is in the jar
(b) That there is a jar
(c) That there are any cookies
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.
;
Nothing is known to be true by an infinite sequence of truth
preserving operations.
The bottom line is that you made a mistake and then
continued to lie about it.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 35:14:29 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,141 |