XPost: sci.logic

On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:

In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly plugs into
analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:

An analytic expression is: Any expression of language verified as
completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other
expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).

*Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics of natural
language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of assertions) as
being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics

*Analytic truth is*
(a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic meaning to
terms. *similar to axioms*

(b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite string transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from axioms*

Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the definition normally
used does not include your end note of "similar to proof from axioms",
but allows for the application of an INFINITE sequence to establish
truth, while proofs require a finite sequences.

Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
"Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying to use it to
support your position is counter-productive.

This has been pointed out to you many times, and your refusal to learn
it just shows your total ignorance and stupidity with regard to logic.

'True in Russell's system' means, as was said:
proved in Russell's system; and
'false in Russell's system' means:
the opposite has been proved in Russell's system https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

AKA  True(RS, G) ≡ (RS ⊢ C)
AKA False(RS, G) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬G)

Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show that to be true.

Thus, your fallacious appeal to authority is just invalid logic, proving
that you just don't un

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

XPost: sci.logic

On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:

In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly plugs into
analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:

An analytic expression is: Any expression of language verified as
completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other
expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).

*Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics of natural
language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of assertions) as
being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics

*Analytic truth is*
(a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic meaning to
terms. *similar to axioms*

(b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite string
transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from axioms*

Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the definition normally
used does not include your end note of "similar to proof from axioms",
but allows for the application of an INFINITE sequence to establish
truth, while proofs require a finite sequences.

Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
"Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying to use it to
support your position is counter-productive.

This has been pointed out to you many times, and your refusal to learn
it just shows your total ignorance and stupidity with regard to logic.

'True in Russell's system' means, as was said:
proved in Russell's system; and
'false in Russell's system' means:
the opposite has been proved in Russell's system
https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show that to be
true.

*This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
 True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.

So, an ERROR.

I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.

And you are BOTH WRONG.

*This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really works*
*thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*

Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological lying idiot.

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

XPost: sci.logic

On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:

In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly plugs into
analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:

An analytic expression is: Any expression of language verified as
completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other
expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).

*Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics of natural >>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of assertions) as >>>>> being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics

*Analytic truth is*
(a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic meaning
to terms. *similar to axioms*

(b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite string
transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from axioms*

Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the definition
normally used does not include your end note of "similar to proof
from axioms", but allows for the application of an INFINITE sequence
to establish truth, while proofs require a finite sequences.

Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
"Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying to use it
to support your position is counter-productive.

This has been pointed out to you many times, and your refusal to
learn it just shows your total ignorance and stupidity with regard
to logic.

'True in Russell's system' means, as was said:
proved in Russell's system; and
'false in Russell's system' means:
the opposite has been proved in Russell's system
https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show that to
be true.

*This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.

So, an ERROR.

I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.

And you are BOTH WRONG.

*This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really works*
*thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*

Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological lying idiot.

*It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*

I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't know what it
means.

ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are "stupid" (or
some other attribute).

I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG, and point out
why you are wrong.

An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.

Which you fail to do.

YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong, and claim to
do so by claiming to show a counter example.

I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't need a
counter-example.

I show that your counter-example fails to meet the definitions,

The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the actual machine,
not some unsound logic based on a partial simulation.] That behavior is
to reach a final state.

In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an answer, I
show that the answer it gives is wrong.

That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
sort of valid counter-example.

It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG definitions, by
looking at your own words.

Try and find any expression of language that must be true or false
that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that derive
its truth or falsity.

So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.

I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence of steps, not
even infinite.

I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain, either finite
or infinite, from the truth makers of the system.

YOU have tried to claim that it must be a finite chain (and thus usable
as a proof).

If you accept that Truth can be established by an infinite chain of
steps, then you admit that some truth might not be Provable, as the
definition of proof (at least in normal logic system) requires a finite
chain to the statement, not infinite.

*If this can't possibly be done then that proves that I am correct*

NO, it prove yourself to be a lying idiot.

It really looks like you are having mental problems, I do suggest you
seek professional help. It may well be that you are too far gone, but
your logic has visible deteriated over the last couple of years.

You have stopped coming up with new ways to phrase your errors, and have
just gotten repetitive,

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

XPost: sci.logic

On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:

In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly plugs into >>>>>>> analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:

An analytic expression is: Any expression of language verified as >>>>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other
expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).

*Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics of natural >>>>>>> language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of
assertions) as
being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics

*Analytic truth is*
(a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic
meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*

(b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite string >>>>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from axioms* >>>>>>

Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the definition
normally used does not include your end note of "similar to proof
from axioms", but allows for the application of an INFINITE
sequence to establish truth, while proofs require a finite sequences. >>>>>>
Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
"Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying to use
it to support your position is counter-productive.

This has been pointed out to you many times, and your refusal to
learn it just shows your total ignorance and stupidity with regard >>>>>> to logic.

'True in Russell's system' means, as was said:
proved in Russell's system; and
'false in Russell's system' means:
the opposite has been proved in Russell's system
https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show that
to be true.

*This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.

So, an ERROR.

I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.

And you are BOTH WRONG.

*This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really works*
*thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*

Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological lying idiot.

*It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*

I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't know what
it means.

ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are "stupid" (or
some other attribute).

I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG, and point
out why you are wrong.

An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.

Which you fail to do.

YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong, and claim to
do so by claiming to show a counter example.

I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't need a
counter-example.

I show that your counter-example fails to meet the definitions,

The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the actual machine,
not some unsound logic based on a partial simulation.] That behavior
is to reach a final state.

In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an answer, I
show that the answer it gives is wrong.

That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
sort of valid counter-example.

It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG definitions, by
looking at your own words.

Try and find any expression of language that must be true or false
that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that derive
its truth or falsity.

So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.

I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence of steps,
not even infinite.

I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain, either finite
or infinite, from the truth makers of the system.

*That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*

What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
wrong with them such as:

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)

Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or irrefutable because
the statement has not truth value. The Liar is one of them.

But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument there is
just invalid.

He did not "start" with a reasoning form the epistemological antinomy,
but used a transformation that takes the FORM of one, and makes it intp
a statement that actually has semantic meaning and a truth value.

The methods seem to be beyond your reasoning, so I won't try to explain
it, but TRY to find where in his proof he actually does what you say he
does.

Where is the Liar's Paradox actually used in part of the proof. (Not
just his statement about being able to "use" something else that is
similar).

Note, the statement "G is defined as G is not provable in F if and only
if G is True if F" is NOT "the Liars Paradox" as that has the assertion
that the Liar is FALSE if and only if it is True. Not being provable is definitionally different than not being true.

You have even admitted it, as you just recently admited that Truth can
have an infinite chain connection, while proof must have a finite chain,
so any statement with only an infinite chain would be True but not Provable.

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

XPost: sci.logic

On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:

In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly plugs >>>>>>>>> into
analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:

An analytic expression is: Any expression of language verified as >>>>>>>>> completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other >>>>>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth >>>>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).

*Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics of >>>>>>>>> natural
language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of
assertions) as
being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics

*Analytic truth is*
(a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic
meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*

(b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite string >>>>>>>>> transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from axioms* >>>>>>>>

Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the definition
normally used does not include your end note of "similar to
proof from axioms", but allows for the application of an
INFINITE sequence to establish truth, while proofs require a
finite sequences.

Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
"Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying to use >>>>>>>> it to support your position is counter-productive.

This has been pointed out to you many times, and your refusal to >>>>>>>> learn it just shows your total ignorance and stupidity with
regard to logic.

'True in Russell's system' means, as was said:
proved in Russell's system; and
'false in Russell's system' means:
the opposite has been proved in Russell's system
https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show that >>>>>>>> to be true.

*This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.

So, an ERROR.

I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.

And you are BOTH WRONG.

*This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really works* >>>>>>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*

Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological lying idiot. >>>>>

*It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*

I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't know
what it means.

ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are "stupid"
(or some other attribute).

I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG, and point
out why you are wrong.

An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.

Which you fail to do.

YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong, and claim
to do so by claiming to show a counter example.

I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't need a
counter-example.

I show that your counter-example fails to meet the definitions,

The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the actual
machine, not some unsound logic based on a partial simulation.] That
behavior is to reach a final state.

In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an answer,
I show that the answer it gives is wrong.

That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
sort of valid counter-example.

It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG definitions, by
looking at your own words.

Try and find any expression of language that must be true or false
that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that derive
its truth or falsity.

So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.

I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence of steps,
not even infinite.

I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain, either
finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the system.

*That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*

What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
wrong with them such as:

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)

Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or irrefutable because
the statement has not truth value. The Liar is one of them.

But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument there is
just invalid.

He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he did not
understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You
seem to understand this thus putting you above him.

Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to know that
Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so your claim otherwise is
just noise.

You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something they did not to.

THAT is Libel.

He did not "start" with a reasoning form the epistemological antinomy,
but used a transformation that takes the FORM of one, and makes it
intp a statement that actually has semantic meaning and a truth value.

Tarski proved that the Liar Paradox (when applied to itself) is true.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true.

Right, CONDITIONED on the assumption that a computable procedure to
determine the Truth of a sentence existed, thus, that assumption must be
wrong.

He and Gödel never understood that epistemological antinomies are
erroneous. You do understand this placing you above both of them.

No, they both understood it, better than you, as they understood the implications of that.

The methods seem to be beyond your reasoning, so I won't try to
explain it, but TRY to find where in his proof he actually does what
you say he does.

I have done that many times with Tarski and you simply don't believe me

Because you don't do what you claim.

The statement you point to is either where he PROVES the Liar, based on
an assumption, which shows the assumption can not be true, or he uses it
as a base to transform into a sentence that DOES have a truth value via
a syntatic transformation that doesn't preserve sematics (and thus
doesn't carry the antinomy with it).

But the diagonal lemma yields a counterexample to this equivalence, by
giving a "liar" formula S such that S ⟺ ¬True(g(A)) holds in N. This
is a contradiction QED.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem#General_form

And where is the contradiction in that?

You are just showing your ignorance.

Where is the Liar's Paradox actually used in part of the proof. (Not
just his statement about being able to "use" something else that is
similar).

Note, the statement "G is defined as G is not provable in F if and
only if G is True if F"  is NOT "the Liars Paradox" as that has the
assertion that the Liar is FALSE if and only if it is True. Not being
provable is definitionally different than not being true.

You have even admitted it, as you just recently admited that Truth can
have an infinite chain connection, while proof must have a finite
chain, so any statement with only an infinite chain would be True but
not Provable.

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

XPost: sci.logic

On 2/4/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:

In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly >>>>>>>>>>> plugs into
analytic truth we must first understand that this is true: >>>>>>>>>>>
An analytic expression is: Any expression of language
verified as
completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other >>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth >>>>>>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).

*Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics of >>>>>>>>>>> natural
language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of
assertions) as
being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions. >>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics >>>>>>>>>>>
*Analytic truth is*
(a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic >>>>>>>>>>> meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*

(b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite >>>>>>>>>>> string
transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from >>>>>>>>>>> axioms*

Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the definition >>>>>>>>>> normally used does not include your end note of "similar to >>>>>>>>>> proof from axioms", but allows for the application of an
INFINITE sequence to establish truth, while proofs require a >>>>>>>>>> finite sequences.

Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why
"Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying to >>>>>>>>>> use it to support your position is counter-productive.

This has been pointed out to you many times, and your refusal >>>>>>>>>> to learn it just shows your total ignorance and stupidity with >>>>>>>>>> regard to logic.

'True in Russell's system' means, as was said:
proved in Russell's system; and
'false in Russell's system' means:
the opposite has been proved in Russell's system
https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show >>>>>>>>>> that to be true.

*This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.

So, an ERROR.

I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with
his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.

And you are BOTH WRONG.

*This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really works* >>>>>>>>> *thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG*

Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological lying
idiot.

*It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*

I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't know
what it means.

ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are "stupid"
(or some other attribute).

I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG, and
point out why you are wrong.

An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.

Which you fail to do.

YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong, and
claim to do so by claiming to show a counter example.

I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't need a
counter-example.

I show that your counter-example fails to meet the definitions,

The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the actual
machine, not some unsound logic based on a partial simulation.]
That behavior is to reach a final state.

In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an
answer, I show that the answer it gives is wrong.

That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
sort of valid counter-example.

It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG definitions,
by looking at your own words.

Try and find any expression of language that must be true or false >>>>>>> that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that derive
its truth or falsity.

So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.

I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence of
steps, not even infinite.

I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain, either
finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the system.

*That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*

What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
wrong with them such as:

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)

Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or irrefutable
because the statement has not truth value. The Liar is one of them.

But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument there is
just invalid.

He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he did not
understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You
seem to understand this thus putting you above him.

Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to know that
Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so your claim otherwise
is just noise.

You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something they did
not to.

THAT is Libel.

That Gödel did not understand that epistemological antinomies must
be rejected as erroneous is factual. This by itself proves that he
did not correctly understand undecidability, the key element of
his proof.

But he didn't do what you claim, showing that YOU are the stupid and
ignorant one.

He did not "start" with a reasoning form the epistemological
antinomy, but used a transformation that takes the FORM of one, and
makes it intp a statement that actually has semantic meaning and a
truth value.

Tarski proved that the Liar Paradox (when applied to itself) is true.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true.

Right, CONDITIONED on the assumption that a computable procedure to
determine the Truth of a sentence existed, thus, that assumption must
be wrong.

Not at all. As soon as it is understood that epistemological
antinomies must be rejected as erroneous his proof loses its basis.

Nope. Because he DOES reject the epistmemological antinomies as soon as
it comes up as something that would appear to have a truth value.

He and Gödel never understood that epistemological antinomies are
erroneous. You do understand this placing you above both of them.

No, they both understood it, better than you, as they understood the
implications of that.

*That is counter-factual*
If they understood that epistemological antinomies are erroneous
they would have understood that they must be rejected instead
of using them as any basis in any proof.

SO, I guess you admit that YOUR "proof" must be rejected, as it is
"based" on epistemological antinomies.

Your problem is that you crude parsing can't handle the nuances of their
logic. You are admitting that by not answering the question of showing
exact where they do this. Every point you have tried, it wasn't an
assumption that it was true, but a RESULT of prior logic that it was
true, showing the tentative assumption prior must have been wrong.

Your reasoning is incoherent. I think that you know that.
Trollish head games seems to be your thing.

YOUR reasoning is incoherent. You make so many claims that are just not
true, you

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

XPost: sci.logic

On 2/4/24 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/4/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:

In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>> plugs into
analytic truth we must first understand that this is true: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
An analytic expression is: Any expression of language >>>>>>>>>>>>> verified as
completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other >>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth >>>>>>>>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).

*Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>> of natural
language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of >>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions) as
being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions. >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>
*Analytic truth is*
(a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*

(b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite >>>>>>>>>>>>> string
transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from >>>>>>>>>>>>> axioms*

Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the
definition normally used does not include your end note of >>>>>>>>>>>> "similar to proof from axioms", but allows for the
application of an INFINITE sequence to establish truth, >>>>>>>>>>>> while proofs require a finite sequences.

Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why >>>>>>>>>>>> "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying to >>>>>>>>>>>> use it to support your position is counter-productive. >>>>>>>>>>>>
This has been pointed out to you many times, and your
refusal to learn it just shows your total ignorance and >>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity with regard to logic.

'True in Russell's system' means, as was said:
proved in Russell's system; and
'false in Russell's system' means:
the opposite has been proved in Russell's system
https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have show >>>>>>>>>>>> that to be true.

*This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system.

So, an ERROR.

I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with >>>>>>>>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.

And you are BOTH WRONG.

*This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really >>>>>>>>>>> works*
*thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG* >>>>>>>>>>>

Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological lying >>>>>>>>>> idiot.

*It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*

I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't know >>>>>>>> what it means.

ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are
"stupid" (or some other attribute).

I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG, and
point out why you are wrong.

An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.

Which you fail to do.

YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong, and
claim to do so by claiming to show a counter example.

I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't need a >>>>>>>> counter-example.

I show that your counter-example fails to meet the definitions, >>>>>>>>
The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the actual
machine, not some unsound logic based on a partial simulation.] >>>>>>>> That behavior is to reach a final state.

In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an
answer, I show that the answer it gives is wrong.

That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
sort of valid counter-example.

It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG definitions, >>>>>>>> by looking at your own words.

Try and find any expression of language that must be true or false >>>>>>>>> that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that derive >>>>>>>>> its truth or falsity.

So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.

I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence of
steps, not even infinite.

I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain, either >>>>>>>> finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the system.

*That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*

What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
wrong with them such as:

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)

Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or irrefutable
because the statement has not truth value. The Liar is one of them. >>>>>>
But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument there
is just invalid.

He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he did not
understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You
seem to understand this thus putting you above him.

Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to know
that Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so your claim
otherwise is just noise.

You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something they did
not to.

THAT is Libel.

That Gödel did not understand that epistemological antinomies must
be rejected as erroneous is factual. This by itself proves that he
did not correctly understand undecidability, the key element of
his proof.

But he didn't do what you claim, showing that YOU are the stupid and
ignorant one.

Whether or not he did or did not do what I claim, he did assert
that he intended to do what I claim.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own unprovability...(Gödel 1931:43-44)

Nope.

So, you ADMIT you are just making up your claims.

Good that you are honest about something

and proved that he failed to understand that epistemological antinomies
must be rejected as incorrect thus not the basis for any proof.
...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)

Gödel did not say I am going to use something in a proof that I
already know cannot correctly be used in a proof. He thought
that he could use it in a proof and HE WAS WRONG.

Nope, YOU are wrong, because you don't understand what he did.

You have admitted that, and thus, you are just admitting that you are a
LIAR.

You have totally killed any reputation you have. Maybe you can get some
support from MAGA, as they like your type of logic.

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

XPost: sci.logic

On 2/4/24 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/4/24 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/4/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:

In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plugs into
analytic truth we must first understand that this is true: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An analytic expression is: Any expression of language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified as
completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).

*Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of natural
language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions) as
being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*Analytic truth is*
(a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic meaning to terms. *similar to axioms*

(b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string
transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from axioms*

Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition normally used does not include your end note of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "similar to proof from axioms", but allows for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> application of an INFINITE sequence to establish truth, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> while proofs require a finite sequences.

Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about why >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so trying >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use it to support your position is counter-productive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This has been pointed out to you many times, and your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> refusal to learn it just shows your total ignorance and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity with regard to logic.

'True in Russell's system' means, as was said:
proved in Russell's system; and
'false in Russell's system' means:
the opposite has been proved in Russell's system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> show that to be true.

*This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system. >>>>>>>>>>>>
So, an ERROR.

I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with >>>>>>>>>>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.

And you are BOTH WRONG.

*This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth really >>>>>>>>>>>>> works*
*thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG* >>>>>>>>>>>>>

Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological >>>>>>>>>>>> lying idiot.

*It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*

I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't >>>>>>>>>> know what it means.

ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are
"stupid" (or some other attribute).

I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG, and >>>>>>>>>> point out why you are wrong.

An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.

Which you fail to do.

YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong, and >>>>>>>>>> claim to do so by claiming to show a counter example.

I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't need a >>>>>>>>>> counter-example.

I show that your counter-example fails to meet the definitions, >>>>>>>>>>
The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the actual >>>>>>>>>> machine, not some unsound logic based on a partial
simulation.] That behavior is to reach a final state.

In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an >>>>>>>>>> answer, I show that the answer it gives is wrong.

That you and others simply don't believe me is not any
sort of valid counter-example.

It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG
definitions, by looking at your own words.

Try and find any expression of language that must be true or >>>>>>>>>>> false
that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that derive >>>>>>>>>>> its truth or falsity.

So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.

I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence of >>>>>>>>>> steps, not even infinite.

I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain,
either finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the system. >>>>>>>>>>

*That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*

What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions
are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something
wrong with them such as:

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a >>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)

Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or irrefutable
because the statement has not truth value. The Liar is one of them. >>>>>>>>
But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument
there is just invalid.

He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he did not >>>>>>> understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You
seem to understand this thus putting you above him.

Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to know
that Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so your claim
otherwise is just noise.

You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something they
did not to.

THAT is Libel.

That Gödel did not understand that epistemological antinomies must
be rejected as erroneous is factual. This by itself proves that he
did not correctly understand undecidability, the key element of
his proof.

But he didn't do what you claim, showing that YOU are the stupid and
ignorant one.

Whether or not he did or did not do what I claim, he did assert
that he intended to do what I claim.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its
own unprovability...(Gödel 1931:43-44)

Nope.

So, you ADMIT you are just making up your claims.

Good that you are honest about something

and proved that he failed to understand that epistemological antinomies
must be rejected as incorrect thus not the basis for any proof.
...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)

Gödel did not say I am going to use something in a proof that I
already know cannot correctly be used in a proof. He thought
that he could use it in a proof and HE WAS WRONG.

Nope, YOU are wrong, because you don't understand what he did.

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
WRONG !!!

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
WRONG !!!

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
WRONG !!!

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
WRONG !!!

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
WRONG !!!

Which doesn't meen he built the proof of an assumption that the
epistemological antinomy was anything other than an epistemological
antinomy, and thus didn't drive any statement truth from such a statement.

You don't seem to understand the morphological operations he used.

You have admitted that what he did isn't a problem, as you can't find
the spot he actually did what you claim

Thus, you are admitting that you yourself is the liar.

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

XPost: sci.logic

On 2/4/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/4/24 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/4/24 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/4/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:

In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly plugs into
analytic truth we must first understand that this is true: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An analytic expression is: Any expression of language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified as
completely true entirely on the basis of its relation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to other
expressions of language that derive their meaning from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth
conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of natural
language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions) as
being the same as, or reducible to, their truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*Analytic truth is*
(a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic meaning to terms. *similar to axioms* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string
transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from axioms*

Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition normally used does not include your end note >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "similar to proof from axioms", but allows for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application of an INFINITE sequence to establish truth, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while proofs require a finite sequences.

Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to use it to support your position is
counter-productive.

This has been pointed out to you many times, and your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refusal to learn it just shows your total ignorance and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity with regard to logic.

'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved in Russell's system; and
'false in Russell's system' means:
the opposite has been proved in Russell's system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show that to be true.

*This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, an ERROR.

I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him.

And you are BOTH WRONG.

*This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really works*
*thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE WRONG* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying idiot.

*It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much*

I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you don't >>>>>>>>>>>> know what it means.

ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are >>>>>>>>>>>> "stupid" (or some other attribute).

I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG, >>>>>>>>>>>> and point out why you are wrong.

An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example.

Which you fail to do.

YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong, >>>>>>>>>>>> and claim to do so by claiming to show a counter example. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't need >>>>>>>>>>>> a counter-example.

I show that your counter-example fails to meet the definitions, >>>>>>>>>>>>
The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the >>>>>>>>>>>> actual machine, not some unsound logic based on a partial >>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.] That behavior is to reach a final state.

In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives an >>>>>>>>>>>> answer, I show that the answer it gives is wrong.

That you and others simply don't believe me is not any >>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of valid counter-example.

It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG
definitions, by looking at your own words.

Try and find any expression of language that must be true >>>>>>>>>>>>> or false
that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that >>>>>>>>>>>>> derive
its truth or falsity.

So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements.

I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence >>>>>>>>>>>> of steps, not even infinite.

I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain, >>>>>>>>>>>> either finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the system. >>>>>>>>>>>>

*That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most*

What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions >>>>>>>>>>> are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something >>>>>>>>>>> wrong with them such as:

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a >>>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)

Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or irrefutable >>>>>>>>>> because the statement has not truth value. The Liar is one of >>>>>>>>>> them.

But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument >>>>>>>>>> there is just invalid.

He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he did not >>>>>>>>> understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You >>>>>>>>> seem to understand this thus putting you above him.

Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to know >>>>>>>> that Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so your claim >>>>>>>> otherwise is just noise.

You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something they >>>>>>>> did not to.

THAT is Libel.

That Gödel did not understand that epistemological antinomies must >>>>>>> be rejected as erroneous is factual. This by itself proves that he >>>>>>> did not correctly understand undecidability, the key element of
his proof.

But he didn't do what you claim, showing that YOU are the stupid
and ignorant one.

Whether or not he did or did not do what I claim, he did assert
that he intended to do what I claim.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its
own unprovability...(Gödel 1931:43-44)

Nope.

So, you ADMIT you are just making up your claims.

Good that you are honest about something

and proved that he failed to understand that epistemological
antinomies
must be rejected as incorrect thus not the basis for any proof.
...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)

Gödel did not say I am going to use something in a proof that I
already know cannot correctly be used in a proof. He thought
that he could use it in a proof and HE WAS WRONG.

Nope, YOU are wrong, because you don't understand what he did.

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
WRONG !!!

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
WRONG !!!

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
WRONG !!!

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
WRONG !!!

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
WRONG !!!

Which doesn't meen he built the proof of an assumption that the
epistemological antinomy was anything other than an epistemological
antinomy, and thus didn't drive any statement truth from such a
statement.

It conclusively proves that he did not understand the key idea of his
whole proof: undecidability.

Nope.

I don't think YOU know what that terms means (in computation theory),
and you clearly don't know what the things in the proof means, so your "opinion" on it is just more of your POOP.

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

XPost: sci.logic

On 2/4/24 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/4/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/4/24 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/4/24 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/4/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:

In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly plugs into
analytic truth we must first understand that this is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true:

An analytic expression is: Any expression of language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified as
completely true entirely on the basis of its relation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to other
expressions of language that derive their meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from truth
conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of natural
language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of assertions) as
being the same as, or reducible to, their truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*Analytic truth is*
(a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic meaning to terms. *similar to axioms* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string
transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from axioms*

Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition normally used does not include your end >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> note of "similar to proof from axioms", but allows for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the application of an INFINITE sequence to establish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth, while proofs require a finite sequences. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note also, your reference is almost exclusively about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not used/valid, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to use it to support your position is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter-productive.

This has been pointed out to you many times, and your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refusal to learn it just shows your total ignorance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and stupidity with regard to logic.

'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved in Russell's system; and
'false in Russell's system' means:
the opposite has been proved in Russell's system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

Which isn't actually a true statement, and others have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show that to be true.

*This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, an ERROR.

I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his same reasoning before I ever herd of him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And you are BOTH WRONG.

*This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really works*
*thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG*

Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant pathological >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying idiot.

*It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know what it means.

ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stupid" (or some other attribute).

I say you are stupid because you are constistantly WRONG, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and point out why you are wrong.

An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Which you fail to do.

YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is wrong, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and claim to do so by claiming to show a counter example. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need a counter-example.

I show that your counter-example fails to meet the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions,

The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual machine, not some unsound logic based on a partial >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.] That behavior is to reach a final state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an answer, I show that the answer it gives is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That you and others simply don't believe me is not any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of valid counter-example.

It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions, by looking at your own words.

Try and find any expression of language that must be true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or false
that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derive
its truth or falsity.

So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I NEVER said that something could be true with NO sequence >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps, not even infinite.

I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> either finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> system.

*That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most* >>>>>>>>>>>>>
What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions >>>>>>>>>>>>> are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with them such as:

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used >>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43)

Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or
irrefutable because the statement has not truth value. The >>>>>>>>>>>> Liar is one of them.

But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your argument >>>>>>>>>>>> there is just invalid.

He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he did not >>>>>>>>>>> understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You >>>>>>>>>>> seem to understand this thus putting you above him.

Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to >>>>>>>>>> know that Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so >>>>>>>>>> your claim otherwise is just noise.

You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something >>>>>>>>>> they did not to.

THAT is Libel.

That Gödel did not understand that epistemological antinomies must >>>>>>>>> be rejected as erroneous is factual. This by itself proves that he >>>>>>>>> did not correctly understand undecidability, the key element of >>>>>>>>> his proof.

But he didn't do what you claim, showing that YOU are the stupid >>>>>>>> and ignorant one.

Whether or not he did or did not do what I claim, he did assert
that he intended to do what I claim.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts
its own unprovability...(Gödel 1931:43-44)

Nope.

So, you ADMIT you are just making up your claims.

Good that you are honest about something

and proved that he failed to understand that epistemological
antinomies
must be rejected as incorrect thus not the basis for any proof.
...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)

Gödel did not say I am going to use something in a proof that I >>>>>>> already know cannot correctly be used in a proof. He thought
that he could use it in a proof and HE WAS WRONG.

Nope, YOU are wrong, because you don't understand what he did.

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
WRONG !!!

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
WRONG !!!

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
WRONG !!!

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
WRONG !!!

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
WRONG !!!

Which doesn't meen he built the proof of an assumption that the
epistemological antinomy was anything other than an epistemological
antinomy, and thus didn't drive any statement truth from such a
statement.

It conclusively proves that he did not understand the key idea of his
whole proof: undecidability.

Nope.

I don't think YOU know what that terms means (in computation theory),

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)

Gödel proved that he did not understand undecidability.

Nope, YOUprove you don't understand the proof, and are just too stupid
to understand even the simplified explaination.

Try to prove me wrong and show the actual step in the proof where he
assumes an epistemological antinomy is a truth bearer.

If you say just talking about them is enough to invalid a proof, you
just invalidated your own, as you talked about one.

YOU FAIL.

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

XPost: sci.logic

On 2/4/24 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/4/24 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/4/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/4/24 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/4/24 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 11:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/4/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/4/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 6:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/3/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/3/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:

In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly plugs into
analytic truth we must first understand that this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is true:

An analytic expression is: Any expression of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language verified as
completely true entirely on the basis of its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relation to other
expressions of language that derive their meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from truth
conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of natural
language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of assertions) as
being the same as, or reducible to, their truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*Analytic truth is*
(a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic meaning to terms. *similar to axioms* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(b) Expressions derived by applying truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving finite string
transformations to elements of (a) *similar to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs from axioms*

Note, the ABOVE is NOT from your refernce, and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition normally used does not include your end >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> note of "similar to proof from axioms", but allows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the application of an INFINITE sequence to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> establish truth, while proofs require a finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequences.

Note also, your reference is almost exclusively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about why "Truth-Condition Semantics" are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used/valid, so trying to use it to support your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position is counter-productive.

This has been pointed out to you many times, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your refusal to learn it just shows your total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance and stupidity with regard to logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved in Russell's system; and
'false in Russell's system' means:
the opposite has been proved in Russell's system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
AKA  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
AKA False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

Which isn't actually a true statement, and others >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have show that to be true.

*This <is> what Wittgenstein is saying*
  True(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ P)
False(RS, P) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬P)

WHICH ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF TRUE in Russel's system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, an ERROR.

I know that Wittgenstein is correct because I came up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
his same reasoning before I ever herd of him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And you are BOTH WRONG.

*This <is> the generic way that ALL analytical truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really works*
*thus when math and logic diverge from this THEY ARE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG*

Nope, just shows you are a stupid ignroant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pathological lying idiot.

*It is really stupid to rely on ad hominem so much* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I don't use ad hominem, and your claim just shows you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know what it means.

ad-hominem would be to say you are wrong because you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "stupid" (or some other attribute).

I say you are stupid because you are constistantly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG, and point out why you are wrong.

An actual rebuttal requires a valid counter-example. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Which you fail to do.

YOU are the one claiming that the Halting Proof is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, and claim to do so by claiming to show a counter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example.

I point out the errors in your definitions, That dosn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need a counter-example.

I show that your counter-example fails to meet the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions,

The DEFINITION of Halting is based the behavior of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual machine, not some unsound logic based on a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partial simulation.] That behavior is to reach a final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state.

In EVERY case where you propose an H that actually gives >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an answer, I show that the answer it gives is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That you and others simply don't believe me is not any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of valid counter-example.

It isn't "beleive" we PROVE you are using the WRONG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions, by looking at your own words.

Try and find any expression of language that must be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true or false
that has no sequence of steps infinite or otherwise >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that derive
its truth or falsity.

So, more Strawmen and lies of altering statements. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I NEVER said that something could be true with NO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of steps, not even infinite.

I have ALWAYS said that Truth is establisheb by a chain, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either finite or infinite, from the truth makers of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system.

*That aspect of your reasoning seems superior to most* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What you don't seem to understand is that some expressions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are unprovable and irrefutable because there is something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with them such as:

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
similar undecidability proof... (Gödel 1931:43) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes, there are statements which are unprovable or
irrefutable because the statement has not truth value. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar is one of them.

But, you do not understand what Godel did, so your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument there is just invalid.

He does not matter what Gödel did nearly as much that he >>>>>>>>>>>>> did not
understand that epistemological antinomies are erroneous. You >>>>>>>>>>>>> seem to understand this thus putting you above him.

Then it doesn't matter what you claim, it is just enough to >>>>>>>>>>>> know that Truth is Truth and some Truth is unprovbable, so >>>>>>>>>>>> your claim otherwise is just noise.

You err when you claim someone is wrong for doing something >>>>>>>>>>>> they did not to.

THAT is Libel.

That Gödel did not understand that epistemological antinomies >>>>>>>>>>> must
be rejected as erroneous is factual. This by itself proves >>>>>>>>>>> that he
did not correctly understand undecidability, the key element of >>>>>>>>>>> his proof.

But he didn't do what you claim, showing that YOU are the
stupid and ignorant one.

Whether or not he did or did not do what I claim, he did assert >>>>>>>>> that he intended to do what I claim.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts >>>>>>>>> its own unprovability...(Gödel 1931:43-44)

Nope.

So, you ADMIT you are just making up your claims.

Good that you are honest about something

and proved that he failed to understand that epistemological >>>>>>>>> antinomies
must be rejected as incorrect thus not the basis for any proof. >>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a >>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)

Gödel did not say I am going to use something in a proof that I >>>>>>>>> already know cannot correctly be used in a proof. He thought >>>>>>>>> that he could use it in a proof and HE WAS WRONG.

Nope, YOU are wrong, because you don't understand what he did.

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
WRONG !!!

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
WRONG !!!

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
WRONG !!!

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
WRONG !!!

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)
WRONG !!!

Which doesn't meen he built the proof of an assumption that the
epistemological antinomy was anything other than an
epistemological antinomy, and thus didn't drive any statement
truth from such a statement.

It conclusively proves that he did not understand the key idea of
his whole proof: undecidability.

Nope.

I don't think YOU know what that terms means (in computation theory),

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43)

Gödel proved that he did not understand undecidability.

Nope, YOUprove you don't understand the proof, and are just too stupid
to understand even the simplified explaination.

Try to prove me wrong and show the actual step in the proof where he
assumes an epistemological antinomy is a truth bearer.

*You are almost there, and still ahead of both Gödel and Tarski*

Let's start with the easier one first.

Do you understand that non-truth bearers are out-of-scope of a truth predicate?

Wrong, a Truth Predicate must take every statement that is an element of
the System.

The definition of a Predicate means it can take anything in its domain,
and the requried domain for Tarski Truth Predicate is any statement in
the system L.


You keep on making this sort of error, you don't actually know the
definitions of terms, so you guess, and are wrong.

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

XPost: sci.logic

On 5/02/24 15:45, olcott wrote:

Thus an English poem is valid input to a halt decider.

Only if it is an encoding of a Turing machine.

Every encoding of Turing machines are valid input to a halt decider.
THERE IS NO ENCODING OF A TURING MACHINE WHICH IS NOT A VALID INPUT.

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

XPost: sci.logic

On 4/02/24 01:03, olcott wrote:

In order to see exactly where arithmetic truth correctly plugs into
analytic truth we must first understand that this is true:

An analytic expression is: Any expression of language verified as
completely true entirely on the basis of its relation to other
expressions of language that derive their meaning from truth
conditional semantics. (AKA stipulated truth).

*Truth-conditional semantics* is an approach to semantics of natural
language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of assertions) as
being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics

*Analytic truth is*
(a) Expressions stipulated to be true thus giving semantic meaning to
terms. *similar to axioms*

(b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving finite string transformations to elements of (a) *similar to proofs from axioms*

'True in Russell's system' means, as was said:
proved in Russell's system; and
'false in Russell's system' means:
the opposite has been proved in Russell's system https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

AKA  True(RS, G) ≡ (RS ⊢ C)
AKA False(RS, G) ≡ (RS ⊢ ¬G)

So you refute that a fact is true in one system by inventing a
completely different system.

You reject truth by contradiction, leading to "constructivist logic"
where the fact that something is proven not to be false does not mean it
is true.

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

XPost: sci.logic

On 2/5/24 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/5/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/4/24 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:

*You are almost there, and still ahead of both Gödel and Tarski*

Let's start with the easier one first.

Do you understand that non-truth bearers are out-of-scope of a truth
predicate?

Wrong, a Truth Predicate must take every statement that is an element
of the System.

You understand that epistemological antinomies are not truth
bearers. Truth predicates only take truth bearers anything
else is a type mismatch error.

Nope, predicates take any expression of the language they are in.

The definition of a Predicate means it can take anything in its domain,

Its domain is expressions of language that are truth bearers.

Nope, statement of the language.

When a halt decider is determining whether or not a TM description
specifies a halting computation an English poem is invalid input
only TM descriptions are in its domain.

It depends if that poem looks like the representation of a Halting
Computation or not.

and the requried domain for Tarski Truth Predicate is any statement in
the system L.

Thus an English poem is valid input to a halt decider.

Not if the input symbol set allows the poem to be encoded on the tape.

The question is does the input represent a Halting Computation.

You keep on making this sort of error, you don't actually know the
definitions of terms, so you guess, and are wrong.

Not at all. I was able to understand these definitions at a
much deeper level by having first-hand understanding instead
of just memorizing what textbooks say.

So, why do you keep having inputs that are not representaiton of
Computations?

I see ALL of the reasoning behind these definitions thus can
correctly adapt them to new situations. Others reject these
new situations because they never read about them in any textbook.

Nope, you MISUNDERSTAND the meanings and perform illlogical operations
on the wrong definition.

Epistemological antinomies are not truth bearers thus cannot
be included in any formal system. You have a better understanding
of this that Tarski or Gödel, at least you understand that they
are not truth bearers. Neither Tarski nor Gödel understood this.

Yes, a non-contradictory system that support the property of the
excluded middle can not express an Epistemoogical Antinomy in its language.

If adding a "rule" that ends up allowing one to be expressed, then the
system must no longer be a non-contradictory system that supports the
property of the excluded middle.

YOU don't understand what Trski or Godel did in their proof, so you are
not in a position to put them down. You have effectively admitted this
by refusiong to even try to point out the step where they actually USED
an Epistemological Antinomy in a what that assumes it has a truth value.

Thus, you are just admitting to being a pathological liar.

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