Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
| sci.logic | Logic -- math, philosophy & computationa | 262,912 messages |
[ << oldest | < older | list | newer > | newest >> ]
| Message 262,255 of 262,912 |
| olcott to Richard Damon |
| =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_readers_are_conned_into_ |
| 30 Dec 25 13:13:10 |
XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy From: polcott333@gmail.com On 12/30/2025 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/30/25 2:01 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 12/30/2025 12:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 12/30/25 11:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 12/30/2025 9:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 12/30/25 9:52 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 12/30/2025 8:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/30/25 12:33 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/29/2025 10:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/29/25 11:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/2025 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There exists a sequence of inference steps from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the axioms of a formal system that prove that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they themselves do not exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, there is an INFININTE string of inference steps in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the base theory that shows that no FINITE string of >>>>>>>>>>>>> inference steps to show it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rene Descartes said: "I think therefore I never existed". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no sequence of inference steps that >>>>>>>>>>>> prove they themselves do not exist. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no sequence of inference steps that >>>>>>>>>>>> prove they themselves do not exist. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no sequence of inference steps that >>>>>>>>>>>> prove they themselves do not exist. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no sequence of inference steps that >>>>>>>>>>>> prove they themselves do not exist. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no sequence of inference steps that >>>>>>>>>>>> prove they themselves do not exist. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is all that Gödel ever proved. >>>>>>>>>>>> That is all that Gödel ever proved. >>>>>>>>>>>> That is all that Gödel ever proved. >>>>>>>>>>>> That is all that Gödel ever proved. >>>>>>>>>>>> That is all that Gödel ever proved. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you are just showing that you don't know what >>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about and thus going into non-sense, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition >>>>>>>>>> which asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, you have said this before, and I have explained it, but >>>>>>>>> apparently you can't read. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Correctly paraphrased as: >>>>>>>>>> a sequence of inference steps from axioms >>>>>>>>>> that assert that they themselves do not exist. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope, as I have pointed out, you have missed the context, >>>>>>>>> because you are so stupid. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a proposition which asserts its own unprovability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a proposition who has a meaning in the meta-system talking about >>>>>>> its provability in the base system. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" >>>>>> the outer sentence is true because the inner sentence >>>>>> is semantically incoherent. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> You just ignore context as that is just to complicated for you. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I focus on the details that everyone else has been >>>>>> indoctrinated to ignore. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The proof of such an propostion within the same >>>>>>>> formal system would require a sequence of inference >>>>>>>> steps that prove that they themselves do not exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which just shows you don't understand the concept of Formal >>>>>>> Systems, and their meta-systems. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" >>>>>> the outer sentence is true because the inner sentence >>>>>> is semantically incoherent. >>>>> >>>>> In other words, you can't talk about the sentence you want to talk >>>>> about, so you do to soething irrelevent. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Exactly the opposite Incompleteness and Undefinability >>>> dishonestly dodge the fact the their actual sentences >>>> are incoherent by using the meta-level. >>> >>> And what is incoherent about using a meta-level. >>> >>> All a mete-level is, is to build a new Formal System, based on the >>> base system that knows the basic properties of the base system. >>> >>> For instance, the Rational Numbers can be considers a "meta" of the >>> Integeres. >>> >>>> >>>> This meta-level is correct to state that these sentences >>>> are not provable and not true. >>>> >>>> The meta-level never looks at why they are unprovable >>>> and untrue. They are unprovable and untrue BECAUSE they >>>> are semantically incoherent. >>> >>> No, the sentence of G was specifically constructed to have a coherent >>> meaning in the base system, but you just are too stupid to understand >>> that. >>> >> >> Why do you lie about this? Does lying give you cheap thrill? >> >> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its >> own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41) > > And where does this say that is what the sentence is in the base system? > That |
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca