XPost: sci.logic

On 7/17/24 8:02 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.
;

*From immediately above* [somethings] 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.

But it is known to be (true by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations)

So, it is a VALID statement, you are just INTENTIONALLY misinterpreting, showing youself to be a LIAR, or you are totally incompetent in the understanding of the English language.

You don't seem to know the English grammer rule of preference for
cloeset referent.

I guess you are just too stupid.

Sorry, you are just a stupid pathological liar.

This is just like your "diagonalization" proof that didn't exist because
it was nonsene.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)