XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math

On 2/18/2022 7:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/18/22 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/18/2022 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/18/22 7:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/18/2022 5:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/18/22 6:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/18/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/18/22 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/18/2022 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/18/22 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/18/2022 3:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/18/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/18/2022 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/18/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/18/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/18/22 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:

On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that must abort the simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite simulation correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

WRONG. You aren't following the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Try to actually PROVE your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Try to prove that a baby kitten is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an animal and not the windows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the simple meaning of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

RED HERRING. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You just don't understand the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference betweeen FORMAL logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have FAILED, but are too dumb >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to know it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Halting problem undecidability and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3

Your monument to your stupidity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not ONE bit of formal prpof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FAIL. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe you can convince yourzelf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have proven something, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything to agree with you, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think that you understand this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep in your heart, which is why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forums that don't require peer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Every simulating halt decider that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must abort the simulation of its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation correctly transitions to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You all know that what I say is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The fact that no counter-example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Example: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation of its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation where this input halts on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

How about our H and the H" built from it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have shown the H must abort its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of H" or H will never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BUT, When we look at the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavoir of H <H"> we see that we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We start at H".Q0 <H"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have said that H has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> is a non-halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input and goes to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H".Qn
When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THus we have shown that H" <H"> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus we HAVE the counter example that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claim does not exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if H goes to H.Qn for this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simple running opf H" applied >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just shown that BECAUSE H <H"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also go to H".Qn and Halt, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus is not correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FAIL.


You have just shown that you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand anything about formal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A claim that because someone hasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced a counter example means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plain unsond logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TTo claim something follows, 'by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the words' and not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions being used to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rhetorical arguments, but only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you have done is PROVED that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand what you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use formal logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is sort of understandable since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have revealed that you goal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological statement, which isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophy, so if that is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just don't have a background to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory uses. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, you have just FAILED to understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you need to do to show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also shows that you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly don't undstand the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Propositions, the idea of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FAIL.

Have you really got nothing better to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with your time? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble

According to medical science I have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminal cancer with little time left. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legacy.

Since you already agreed that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pathological self-reference of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem proofs makes these proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegitimate I have no idea why you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be reversing course now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be illegitimate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Here is Flibble's reply: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Flibble is a well known crank and troll. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are wasting your time acting as a crank >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and looking for support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from other cranks.

I have boiled the error of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompleteness theorem down to a single >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple sentence. Try and find a single error >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of substance in my paper: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel


Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even take a moron.

Your logic is incorrect because you assume >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your conclusion as a premise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume that Truth can only be something that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is proven, and then from that try to prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Truth is only something that csn be proven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is incorrect, and thus your whole >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguement is invalid.

For example, in mathematics, there are a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of statements that must either be True >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of False, there is no possible middle ground, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but these statements have not been shown to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be provable or disprovable. An example of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the 3x+1 problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Every expression of language does not count as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true until after it has been proven. There are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only two ways to determine if an analytical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language is true. It is an axiom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that assigned the value of Boolean true. It is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derived by sound deduction that is ultimately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anchored in axioms.

Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axiom you need to assume.

Analytical expressions of language are verified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be true entirely on the basis of their meaning. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

WRONG. Formal;

That is a stipulated definition just like a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "given" in geometry.
In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say that a cat is the windows of an office >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building you are simply wrong.

Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something already defined in the system, especially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to something wrong. That violates the rules of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Formal Logic.

(1) That is already what analytical truth means: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Analytic propositions are true or not true solely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by virtue of their meaning"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction

Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic is a branch of philosophy

https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic.

But is a different branch than your Epistemology with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different rules. Formal Logic, which mathematics uses >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines things differently than what you want to use. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes and when formal logic diverges from applying truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to premises that are known to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true (sound deductive inference) on the basis of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic relevance that is maintained in the syllogism: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then formal logic errs and diverges from truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Logical entailment does not require premises to be true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet still requires true preserving operations to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied on the basis of semantic relevance.
Which just says that YOU don't agree with what the whole >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world agrees is

the truth.

Find, you are on your own.

Things an ignoramus would say:

YOU have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basic principles of Formal Logic, and are thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unqualified to discuss it.

When everything that you learn you learn by only rote >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding cannot possibly get any more shallow. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am discussing the philosophical underpinnings upon which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct reasoning is based.

Then you are doing it at the wrong place.

If you disagree with the fundamental logic underpinnings of >>>>>>>>>>>>> all of Formal Logic, you don't start in a peripheral field. >>>>>>>>>>>>> That is useless.

Philosophical foundationalism is the ultimate basis and >>>>>>>>>>>> ground-of-being of correct reasoning and logic, thus 100% >>>>>>>>>>>> directly opposite of peripheral. It cannot possibly be any >>>>>>>>>>>> less peripheral.

You don't read very well I see. I wasn't calling the logic >>>>>>>>>>> underpinnings peripheral, I was calling Computation Theory >>>>>>>>>>> peripheral. If you want to challenge the definition of Truth >>>>>>>>>>> used in Formal Logic, you don't work in a peripheral field, >>>>>>>>>>> which CAN'T change the definition of Truth it uses, because >>>>>>>>>>> it has inhereted it from its

(a) The halting problem proofs,
(b) Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorem,
(c) The Tarski Undefinability theorem and
(d) The liar paradox
all suffer from the same foundational error.

I will point out that the liar's paradox is a completely
DIFFERENT sort of issue,

When analytical truth is understood to be connected sets of >>>>>>>>>> true statements that necessarily derive true conclusions then >>>>>>>>>> all four of the above examples lose their basis and cease to >>>>>>>>>> exist.

Except that it doesn't. Formal Logic IS built on the concept >>>>>>>>> that you can only prove a conclusion from True Premises.

What is isn't built on that Truth has to be proven. Something >>>>>>>>> can be True even if not proven, but if you can't prove it to be >>>>>>>>> true, you can't use it for the basis of a further proof.

Within the body of analytic knowledge an expression of language >>>>>>>> is only true when a connected set of true expressions prove that >>>>>>>> it is true, thus true and unprovable cannot possibly co-exist.

Then the body of analytic knowledge (or at least your
interpreation of it) can't deal with the body of knowledge of
Mathematics, (and related logic families) as they allow for a
statement to be True without needing to be connected to a proof. >>>>>>> PERIOD.

Lets proceed from here. How do we know that a mathematical
expression is true aside from its proof that it is true?

We don't. But we might know that it is True or False, and can
bifurcate on that knowledge.

Yet the Gödel sentence proposed to be true and unprovable.
That cannot possibly be. If it is true then it is provably true
otherwise it is untrue (not the same as false).

The Godel sentence is more complicated then that. In essence the
Godel sentence says the Godel sentence is can not be proven to be
true (without directly referencing th Godel sentence).

Either the sentence is True, then it can not be actually PROVEN true
in the system, since the sentence states, indirectly, that it is
unprovable. (The connection of the statement to itself is outside the
reach of the algerbra in question).

Thus, if it IS true, it must be unprovable.

That is exactly the same as the liar paradox:

No, it isn't.

This sentence is not true. (Is indeed not true).
This sentence cannot be proven. (Is indeed unprovable).

The key is that the liar paradox directly refers to the sentence in
question.

The Godel sentence doesn't, it refers to the sentence by reference to properties that can't be directly mapped within the algerbra, but can
with some meta-analysis. You don't seem to understand the difference.

This is just like the fact that H^ does NOT have any self-reference in
it, the machine H^ does absolutely nothing to refer to itself, (and
thus, the algorithm in H/H^ can't base anything on there being a self-reference)

THe key is that H^ can take any machines description as its input, so we
can just happen to give it the representation of itself. This is also
NOT a self-reference, the input doesn't somehow encode the statement
'look at yourself', it just happens to match the machine it is being
given to.

Gödel expressly said that the liar paradox can be used to derive his
same result, directly quoted on page 7:

Right, he started with the basis of the liar's paradox, but by changing
how it refers to itself, it removes the issue. Note also, Not Provable
is not the same as If False (except by your faulty logic).

LP := ~True(LP)
is isomorphic to
G := ~Provable(G)
Both specify an infinite a cycle that Prolog would reject.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel


The liar paradox and Gödel's G are simply not truth bearers in the
same way that the sentence: "What time is it?" is not a truth bearer.
No self-contradictory expression of language is ever a truth bearer.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

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