On 7/17/2024 7:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
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)
Some cases such as the Goldbach conjecture's truth or falsity may
require in infinite sequence of truth preserving operations as
their truthmaker. In these cases the truth or falsity remains
permanently unknown.
On 7/17/2024 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 7:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
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)
Some cases such as the Goldbach conjecture's truth or falsity may
require in infinite sequence of truth preserving operations as
their truthmaker. In these cases the truth or falsity remains
permanently unknown.
Unless there is a meta-theory that can be discovered that allows the
infinite chain to be reduced to a finite proof.
You miss the point. True (or false) and unknowable.
On 7/17/2024 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, YOU miss the point, it could be:
On 7/17/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 7:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
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:That is included in my "not shown above", in particular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the word "proofs".
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 7/8/2024 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)
Some cases such as the Goldbach conjecture's truth or falsity may
require in infinite sequence of truth preserving operations as
their truthmaker. In these cases the truth or falsity remains
permanently unknown.
Unless there is a meta-theory that can be discovered that allows the
infinite chain to be reduced to a finite proof.
You miss the point. True (or false) and unknowable.
False (which in this case must be provable, since false means the
existance of a counter example, that can be show to make the
conjecture false in a finite number of steps.
OK
True, and provable in the Theory.
True, and not provable in the Theory, but provable in a Meta-Theory
that transfers knowledge to the Theory.
True, and not provably anywhere, and thus unknowable.
True by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations,
(thus having a truth-maker) yet unknowable.
You don't seem to understand that Proofs are limited to the Theory,
but knowledge can move between properly related Meta-Theoryies and
their base Theory.
On 7/17/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:I am saying that ONLY an infinite sequence shows that it is true.
On 7/17/2024 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, YOU miss the point, it could be:
On 7/17/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 7:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
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:That is included in my "not shown above", in particular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the word "proofs".
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 7/8/2024 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)
Some cases such as the Goldbach conjecture's truth or falsity may >>>>>>> require in infinite sequence of truth preserving operations as
their truthmaker. In these cases the truth or falsity remains
permanently unknown.
Unless there is a meta-theory that can be discovered that allows
the infinite chain to be reduced to a finite proof.
You miss the point. True (or false) and unknowable.
False (which in this case must be provable, since false means the
existance of a counter example, that can be show to make the
conjecture false in a finite number of steps.
OK
True, and provable in the Theory.
True, and not provable in the Theory, but provable in a Meta-Theory
that transfers knowledge to the Theory.
True, and not provably anywhere, and thus unknowable.
True by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations,
(thus having a truth-maker) yet unknowable.
You don't seem to understand that the last two cases are decidedly
different.
On 7/17/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:I am saying that ONLY an infinite sequence shows that it is true.
On 7/17/2024 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, YOU miss the point, it could be:
On 7/17/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 7:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
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:That is included in my "not shown above", in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular the word "proofs".
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 7/8/2024 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)
Some cases such as the Goldbach conjecture's truth or falsity may >>>>>>>>> require in infinite sequence of truth preserving operations as >>>>>>>>> their truthmaker. In these cases the truth or falsity remains >>>>>>>>> permanently unknown.
Unless there is a meta-theory that can be discovered that allows >>>>>>>> the infinite chain to be reduced to a finite proof.
You miss the point. True (or false) and unknowable.
False (which in this case must be provable, since false means the
existance of a counter example, that can be show to make the
conjecture false in a finite number of steps.
OK
True, and provable in the Theory.
True, and not provable in the Theory, but provable in a
Meta-Theory that transfers knowledge to the Theory.
True, and not provably anywhere, and thus unknowable.
True by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations,
(thus having a truth-maker) yet unknowable.
You don't seem to understand that the last two cases are decidedly
different.
Which means you still don't understadn about the "System" part o fa
Formal System.
Like Godel's G, only has an infinite chain IN THE SYSTEM, so is
unprovable in the system, but has a finite chain in the meta,
I didn't know that the Goldbach conjecture had a finite chain in meta.
No one else seems to know that.
On 7/17/2024 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 11:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:I am saying that ONLY an infinite sequence shows that it is true.
On 7/17/2024 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, YOU miss the point, it could be:
On 7/17/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 7:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That is included in my "not shown above", in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular the word "proofs".
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 7/8/2024 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)
Some cases such as the Goldbach conjecture's truth or falsity >>>>>>>>>>> may
require in infinite sequence of truth preserving operations as >>>>>>>>>>> their truthmaker. In these cases the truth or falsity remains >>>>>>>>>>> permanently unknown.
Unless there is a meta-theory that can be discovered that
allows the infinite chain to be reduced to a finite proof. >>>>>>>>>>
You miss the point. True (or false) and unknowable.
False (which in this case must be provable, since false means
the existance of a counter example, that can be show to make the >>>>>>>> conjecture false in a finite number of steps.
OK
True, and provable in the Theory.
True, and not provable in the Theory, but provable in a
Meta-Theory that transfers knowledge to the Theory.
True, and not provably anywhere, and thus unknowable.
True by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations,
(thus having a truth-maker) yet unknowable.
You don't seem to understand that the last two cases are decidedly >>>>>> different.
Which means you still don't understadn about the "System" part o fa
Formal System.
Like Godel's G, only has an infinite chain IN THE SYSTEM, so is
unprovable in the system, but has a finite chain in the meta,
I didn't know that the Goldbach conjecture had a finite chain in meta.
No one else seems to know that.
I didn't say it did, I said it MIGHT, and then it would be like
Godel's G. I listed FOUR possible cases for the Goldbach conjecture,
and only one of them leaves it unknowable, but two leave it unprovable
or unrefutable in the system.
It can be hard to find a meta-system to do the trick, since there
could litterlaly be an infinite number of them,
You seem to have a serious English comprehension issue.
*For the last forty messages or so*
I have only ever been talking about the one case where an
ONLY infinite sequence of truth preserving operations shows
that things such as the Goldbach conjecture are true, thus
true and unknowable.
On 7/17/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 11:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:I am saying that ONLY an infinite sequence shows that it is true. >>>>>>>
On 7/17/2024 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, YOU miss the point, it could be:
On 7/17/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 7:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
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:
Thus zero knowledge comes from the infinite proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You spelled "known" incorrectly as "know" yet claimed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that knowledge comes form an infinite proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That is included in my "not shown above", in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular the word "proofs".
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 7/8/2024 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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)
Some cases such as the Goldbach conjecture's truth or >>>>>>>>>>>>> falsity may
require in infinite sequence of truth preserving operations as >>>>>>>>>>>>> their truthmaker. In these cases the truth or falsity remains >>>>>>>>>>>>> permanently unknown.
Unless there is a meta-theory that can be discovered that >>>>>>>>>>>> allows the infinite chain to be reduced to a finite proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>
You miss the point. True (or false) and unknowable.
False (which in this case must be provable, since false means >>>>>>>>>> the existance of a counter example, that can be show to make >>>>>>>>>> the conjecture false in a finite number of steps.
OK
True, and provable in the Theory.
True, and not provable in the Theory, but provable in a
Meta-Theory that transfers knowledge to the Theory.
True, and not provably anywhere, and thus unknowable.
True by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations, >>>>>>>>> (thus having a truth-maker) yet unknowable.
You don't seem to understand that the last two cases are
decidedly different.
Which means you still don't understadn about the "System" part o
fa Formal System.
Like Godel's G, only has an infinite chain IN THE SYSTEM, so is
unprovable in the system, but has a finite chain in the meta,
I didn't know that the Goldbach conjecture had a finite chain in meta. >>>>> No one else seems to know that.
I didn't say it did, I said it MIGHT, and then it would be like
Godel's G. I listed FOUR possible cases for the Goldbach conjecture,
and only one of them leaves it unknowable, but two leave it
unprovable or unrefutable in the system.
It can be hard to find a meta-system to do the trick, since there
could litterlaly be an infinite number of them,
You seem to have a serious English comprehension issue.
*For the last forty messages or so*
I have only ever been talking about the one case where an
ONLY infinite sequence of truth preserving operations shows
that things such as the Goldbach conjecture are true, thus
true and unknowable.
Which is a case that is impossible to know about, and you get into the
definitional question,
Not at all. That is the only case that I have been talking about
I have only ever been talking about the one case where
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations shows
that things such as the Goldbach conjecture are true, thus
true and unknowable.
I can repeat "ONLY" 500 more times if that would help
you notice that I said it at least once.
On 7/18/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/18/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 11:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:I am saying that ONLY an infinite sequence shows that it is true. >>>>>>>>>
On 7/17/2024 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, YOU miss the point, it could be:
On 7/17/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 7:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus zero knowledge comes from the infinite proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You spelled "known" incorrectly as "know" yet claimed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that knowledge comes form an infinite proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 7/11/2024 2:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-10 13:58:42 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That is included in my "not shown above", in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular the word "proofs". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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 7/8/2024 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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)
Some cases such as the Goldbach conjecture's truth or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsity may
require in infinite sequence of truth preserving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations as
their truthmaker. In these cases the truth or falsity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remains
permanently unknown.
Unless there is a meta-theory that can be discovered that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows the infinite chain to be reduced to a finite proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You miss the point. True (or false) and unknowable.
False (which in this case must be provable, since false >>>>>>>>>>>> means the existance of a counter example, that can be show >>>>>>>>>>>> to make the conjecture false in a finite number of steps. >>>>>>>>>>>>
OK
True, and provable in the Theory.
True, and not provable in the Theory, but provable in a >>>>>>>>>>>> Meta-Theory that transfers knowledge to the Theory.
True, and not provably anywhere, and thus unknowable.
True by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations, >>>>>>>>>>> (thus having a truth-maker) yet unknowable.
You don't seem to understand that the last two cases are
decidedly different.
Which means you still don't understadn about the "System" part o >>>>>>>> fa Formal System.
Like Godel's G, only has an infinite chain IN THE SYSTEM, so is >>>>>>>> unprovable in the system, but has a finite chain in the meta,
I didn't know that the Goldbach conjecture had a finite chain in >>>>>>> meta.
No one else seems to know that.
I didn't say it did, I said it MIGHT, and then it would be like
Godel's G. I listed FOUR possible cases for the Goldbach
conjecture, and only one of them leaves it unknowable, but two
leave it unprovable or unrefutable in the system.
It can be hard to find a meta-system to do the trick, since there
could litterlaly be an infinite number of them,
You seem to have a serious English comprehension issue.
*For the last forty messages or so*
I have only ever been talking about the one case where an
ONLY infinite sequence of truth preserving operations shows
that things such as the Goldbach conjecture are true, thus
true and unknowable.
Which is a case that is impossible to know about, and you get into
the definitional question,
Not at all. That is the only case that I have been talking about
I have only ever been talking about the one case where
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations shows
that things such as the Goldbach conjecture are true, thus
true and unknowable.
I can repeat "ONLY" 500 more times if that would help
you notice that I said it at least once.
But that is under-specified. Is "Only" referring to
One thing in the whole universe.
On 7/18/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/18/24 8:58 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/18/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/18/24 12:04 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 11:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:I didn't know that the Goldbach conjecture had a finite chain >>>>>>>>> in meta.
On 7/17/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:I am saying that ONLY an infinite sequence shows that it is >>>>>>>>>>> true.
On 7/17/2024 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/17/24 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, YOU miss the point, it could be:
On 7/17/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/17/2024 7:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus zero knowledge comes from the infinite proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You spelled "known" incorrectly as "know" yet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claimedOn 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is quite obvious that you are the liar. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have not shown any error >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above.
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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)
Some cases such as the Goldbach conjecture's truth or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsity may
require in infinite sequence of truth preserving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations as
their truthmaker. In these cases the truth or falsity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remains
permanently unknown.
Unless there is a meta-theory that can be discovered >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that allows the infinite chain to be reduced to a finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof.
You miss the point. True (or false) and unknowable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
False (which in this case must be provable, since false >>>>>>>>>>>>>> means the existance of a counter example, that can be show >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make the conjecture false in a finite number of steps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OK
True, and provable in the Theory.
True, and not provable in the Theory, but provable in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meta-Theory that transfers knowledge to the Theory. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True, and not provably anywhere, and thus unknowable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True by an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations, >>>>>>>>>>>>> (thus having a truth-maker) yet unknowable.
You don't seem to understand that the last two cases are >>>>>>>>>>>> decidedly different.
Which means you still don't understadn about the "System" part >>>>>>>>>> o fa Formal System.
Like Godel's G, only has an infinite chain IN THE SYSTEM, so >>>>>>>>>> is unprovable in the system, but has a finite chain in the meta, >>>>>>>>>
No one else seems to know that.
I didn't say it did, I said it MIGHT, and then it would be like >>>>>>>> Godel's G. I listed FOUR possible cases for the Goldbach
conjecture, and only one of them leaves it unknowable, but two >>>>>>>> leave it unprovable or unrefutable in the system.
It can be hard to find a meta-system to do the trick, since
there could litterlaly be an infinite number of them,
You seem to have a serious English comprehension issue.
*For the last forty messages or so*
I have only ever been talking about the one case where an
ONLY infinite sequence of truth preserving operations shows
that things such as the Goldbach conjecture are true, thus
true and unknowable.
Which is a case that is impossible to know about, and you get into >>>>>> the definitional question,
Not at all. That is the only case that I have been talking about
I have only ever been talking about the one case where
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations shows
that things such as the Goldbach conjecture are true, thus
true and unknowable.
I can repeat "ONLY" 500 more times if that would help
you notice that I said it at least once.
But that is under-specified. Is "Only" referring to
One thing in the whole universe.
WHICH "Universe".
I quit
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 165:36:05 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,525 |