...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
*Parphrased as*
Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that the formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false.
Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary bearer of truth or falsity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
On 4/17/2024 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
"...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof..." (Gödel 1931:43-44)
is literally true whether or not Gödel meant it literally. Since it <is> literally true I am sure that he did mean it literally.
*Parphrased as*
Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that the
formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false.
Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
It is easy to understand that self-contradictory mean unprovable and irrefutable, thus meeting the definition of Incomplete(F).
Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary
bearer of truth or falsity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
On 4/17/2024 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
*Parphrased as*
Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that the
formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false.
Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary
bearer of truth or falsity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
I posted this here to establish priority date. I already have
another person on a different forum that fully understands what
I am saying and are publishing my ideas as their own.
On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
*Parphrased as*
Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that the >>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false.
Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
Nope.
Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING.
Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F.
You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually is,
because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and don't even
understand that.
Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number that
has a specific property. Until you understand that, your continued
talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving your
absoulute STUPIDITY.
A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary >>> bearer of truth or falsity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are
arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop
talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names
if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing
out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
hear nothing form me.
On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar
undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
*Parphrased as*
Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves
that the
formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false. >>>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
Nope.
Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a >>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING.
Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F.
You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually is,
because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and don't
even understand that.
Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number that
has a specific property. Until you understand that, your continued
talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving your
absoulute STUPIDITY.
A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the
primary
bearer of truth or falsity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are
arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop
talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names
if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing
out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
hear nothing form me.
I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.
You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because it
is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.
It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that satisfies a
particular property, which will be a truth bearing statement (The
number must either exist or it doesn't)
THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
That you repeat the error after being corrected, because apparently
you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer to
it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its
interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic system
derived from F.
The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, so
it seems worthless to repeat them every time.
On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar
undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
*Parphrased as*
Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves
that the
formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or
false.
Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
Nope.
Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a >>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING. >>>>>>
Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F. >>>>>>
You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually
is, because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and
don't even understand that.
Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number
that has a specific property. Until you understand that, your
continued talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving >>>>>> your absoulute STUPIDITY.
A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language, >>>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the >>>>>>> primary
bearer of truth or falsity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are
arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop >>>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names >>>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing >>>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
hear nothing form me.
I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.
You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because
it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.
It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that satisfies
a particular property, which will be a truth bearing statement (The
number must either exist or it doesn't)
THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but incompletenwss,
which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read what you said
above).
INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that
are true.
Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with undecidability,
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf
in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative Recursive
Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly
computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in
finite number of operations).
So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or doesn't
know the difference in the topics).
I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't match
your subject, because I understand your general confusion on the topics.
So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong word,
which just shows your total ignorance about what you are talking about.
Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put together a
coherent argument?
You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to
deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about Godel's
argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you have no
idea what he said, but try to put your own false words into his mouth,
That you repeat the error after being corrected, because apparently
you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. >>>>
You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer
to it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its
interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic
system derived from F.
The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, so
it seems worthless to repeat them every time.
On 4/18/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/18/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a >>>>>>>>> similar
undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
*Parphrased as*
Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves >>>>>>>>> that the
formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or >>>>>>>>> false.
Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
Nope.
Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly >>>>>>>>> be a
proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just >>>>>>>> LYING.
Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven >>>>>>>> in F.
You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually >>>>>>>> is, because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and >>>>>>>> don't even understand that.
Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number >>>>>>>> that has a specific property. Until you understand that, your
continued talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET,
proving your absoulute STUPIDITY.
A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language, >>>>>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as >>>>>>>>> the primary
bearer of truth or falsity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you
are arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will >>>>>>> stop
talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me
names
if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing >>>>>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will >>>>>>> hear nothing form me.
I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.
You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable
because it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.
It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that
satisfies a particular property, which will be a truth bearing
statement (The number must either exist or it doesn't)
THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but
incompletenwss, which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read
what you said above).
INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements
that are true.
Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with
undecidability,
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf
WHERE does he say that GODEL INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM directly says
anything about DECIDABILITY?
Yes, there is a link between completeness and decidability, as an
incomplete system has an undecidable problem, that of the proof
*In other words you are totally retracting the line that I replied to*
Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with
undecidability,
That is good because I totally agree with the preceding line that you said.
generator for that statement, and a system with an undeciable problem
is incomplete, as if we could prove the correct answer, then a theorem
prover could compute the answer, but they are different things.
And your complaint just shows you don't understand that.
in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative Recursive
Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly
computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in
finite number of operations).
So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or
doesn't know the difference in the topics).
I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't match
your subject, because I understand your general confusion on the
topics.
So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong
word, which just shows your total ignorance about what you are
talking about.
Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put together
a coherent argument?
You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to
deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about
Godel's argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you
have no idea what he said, but try to put your own false words into
his mouth,
That you repeat the error after being corrected, because
apparently you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a
PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer >>>>>> to it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its
interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic
system derived from F.
The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them,
so it seems worthless to repeat them every time.
On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
similar
undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
*Parphrased as*
Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves
that the
formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or
false.
Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
Nope.
Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a >>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING. >>>>>>
Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F. >>>>>>
You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually
is, because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and
don't even understand that.
Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number
that has a specific property. Until you understand that, your
continued talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving >>>>>> your absoulute STUPIDITY.
A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language, >>>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the >>>>>>> primary
bearer of truth or falsity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are
arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop >>>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names >>>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing >>>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
hear nothing form me.
I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.
You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because
it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.
It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that satisfies
a particular property, which will be a truth bearing statement (The
number must either exist or it doesn't)
THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but incompletenwss,
which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read what you said
above).
INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that
are true.
I agree with this, and some other sources agree with this.
Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with undecidability,
*Other sources disagree*
*These two sources define Undecidability as Incompleteness*
Incomplete(F) ≡ ∃x ∈ L ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x))
Undecidable
Not decidable as a result of being
*neither formally provable nor unprovable* https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Undecidable.html
Undecidability
The non-existence of an algorithm or the
*impossibility of proving or disproving a*
*statement within a formal system* https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Undecidability#:~:text=The%20non%2Dexistence%20of%20an,statement%20within%20a%20formal%20system.
in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative Recursive
Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly
computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in
finite number of operations).
So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or doesn't
know the difference in the topics).
I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't match
your subject, because I understand your general confusion on the topics.
So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong word,
which just shows your total ignorance about what you are talking about.
Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put together a
coherent argument?
You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to
deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about Godel's
argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you have no
idea what he said, but try to put your own false words into his mouth,
That you repeat the error after being corrected, because apparently
you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. >>>>
You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer
to it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its
interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic
system derived from F.
The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, so
it seems worthless to repeat them every time.
On 4/19/2024 6:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/18/24 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/18/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but
On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for >>>>>>>>>>> a similar
undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
*Parphrased as*
Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false >>>>>>>>>>> proves that the
formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true >>>>>>>>>>> or false.
Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
Nope.
Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just >>>>>>>>>> LYING.
Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot
possibly be a
proposition in F because propositions must be true or false. >>>>>>>>>>
Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be
proven in F.
You don't even seem to understand what the statement G
actually is, because all you look at are the "clift notes" >>>>>>>>>> versions, and don't even understand that.
Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number >>>>>>>>>> that has a specific property. Until you understand that, your >>>>>>>>>> continued talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, >>>>>>>>>> proving your absoulute STUPIDITY.
A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of
language,
semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as >>>>>>>>>>> the primary
bearer of truth or falsity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you >>>>>>>>>> are arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar. >>>>>>>>>>
If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I
will stop
talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me >>>>>>>>> names
if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without
pointing
out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you. >>>>>>>>>
This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will >>>>>>>>> hear nothing form me.
I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.
You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable
because it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.
It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that
satisfies a particular property, which will be a truth bearing >>>>>>>> statement (The number must either exist or it doesn't)
THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>
incompletenwss, which is what the WORDS you used talked about.
(Read what you said above).
INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements
that are true.
Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with
undecidability,
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf
WHERE does he say that GODEL INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM directly says
anything about DECIDABILITY?
Yes, there is a link between completeness and decidability, as an
incomplete system has an undecidable problem, that of the proof
*In other words you are totally retracting the line that I replied to*
Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with
undecidability,
That is good because I totally agree with the preceding line that you
said.
No, because Godel was NOT talking about "undecidability" but
"Incompleteness".
Even though there is a tie between the two topics, they are separate
topics.
Not according to this source
Undecidability
The non-existence of an algorithm or the impossibility of proving or disproving a statement within a formal system.
https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Undecidability#:~:text=The%20non%2Dexistence%20of%20an,statement%20within%20a%20formal%20system.
This just shows that your native lanuguage is just LIES, as that is
all you can focus on.
Note, you have done NOTHING to refute all the errors I pointed out
about your statements of Godel's proof, so you initial statement in
the paraphrase is still shown to be a LIE, and your whole proof just
incorrect and unsound, as you are by your basic nature.
Your concept of "Correct Reasoning" is NOT "Correct", or even really
based on "Reasoning", because you just don't understand either concept.
generator for that statement, and a system with an undeciable
problem is incomplete, as if we could prove the correct answer, then
a theorem prover could compute the answer, but they are different
things.
And your complaint just shows you don't understand that.
in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative Recursive >>>>>> Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly
computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in >>>>>> finite number of operations).
So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or
doesn't know the difference in the topics).
I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't
match your subject, because I understand your general confusion on >>>>>> the topics.
So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong
word, which just shows your total ignorance about what you are
talking about.
Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put
together a coherent argument?
You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to
deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about
Godel's argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you >>>>>> have no idea what he said, but try to put your own false words
into his mouth,
That you repeat the error after being corrected, because
apparently you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a >>>>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to
refer to it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about
its interpretation and what can be proved from it in the
meta-logic system derived from F.
The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE
them, so it seems worthless to repeat them every time.
On 4/20/2024 10:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/20/2024 02:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/20/2024 3:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/19/2024 02:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/19/2024 4:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/19/2024 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/19/2024 11:51 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/17/2024 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/17/2024 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
"...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a >>>>>>>>> similar
undecidability proof..." (Gödel 1931:43-44)
is literally true whether or not Gödel meant it literally.
Since it
<is>
literally true I am sure that he did mean it literally.
*Parphrased as*
Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves >>>>>>>>>> that
the
formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or >>>>>>>>>> false.
Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
It is easy to understand that self-contradictory mean
unprovable and
irrefutable, thus meeting the definition of Incomplete(F).
Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>> be a
proposition in F because propositions must be true or false. >>>>>>>>>>
A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language, >>>>>>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the >>>>>>>>>> primary
bearer of truth or falsity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
Most common-sense types have "the truth is the truth is the truth" >>>>>>>> then
as with regards to logical positivism and a sensitive, thorough, >>>>>>>> comprehensive, reasoned account of rationality and the fundamental >>>>>>>> objects of the logical theory, makes for again a stonger logical >>>>>>>> positivism, reinvigorated with a minimal "silver thread" to a
metaphysics, all quite logicist and all quite positivist, while >>>>>>>> again structuralist and formalist, "the truth is the truth is the >>>>>>>> truth".
Plainly, modeling bodies of knowledge is at least two things,
one is a formal logical model, and another is a scientific model, >>>>>>>> as with regards to expectations, a statistical model.
For all the things to be in one modality, is that, as a model of >>>>>>>> belief, is that belief is formally unreliable, while at the same >>>>>>>> time, reasoned and rational as for its own inner consistency and >>>>>>>> inter-consistency, all the other models in the entire modal
universe,
temporal.
Axioms are stipulations, they're assumptions, and there are some >>>>>>>> very well-reasoned ones, and those what follow the reflections on >>>>>>>> relation, in matters of definition of structural relation, and >>>>>>>> the first-class typing, of these things.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is >>>>>>> a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning >>>>>>> without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
In the case of the correct model of the actual world stipulations >>>>>>> are not assumptions. In this case stipulations are the assignment of >>>>>>> semantic meaning to otherwise totally meaningless finite strings. >>>>>>>
We do not merely assume that a "dead rat" is not any type of
"fifteen story office building" we know that it is a self-evident >>>>>>> truth.
Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true for the
sole purpose of providing semantic meaning to otherwise totally
meaningless finite strings provide the ultimate foundation of every >>>>>>> expression that are true on the basis of its meaning.
The only other element required to define the entire body of
{expressions of language that are true on the basis of their
meaning}
is applying truth preserving operations to stipulated truths.
The axiomless, really does make for a richer accoutrement,
after metaphysics and the canon, why the objects of reason
and rationality, "arise" from axiomless deduction, naturally.
Then, our axiomatics and theory "attain" to this, the truth,
of what is, "A Theory", at all.
One good theory. (Modeling all individuals and contingencies >>>>>>>> and their models of belief as part of the world of theory.)
One good theory, "A Theory: at all", we are in it.
A catalog and schema and dictionary and the finite is only that, >>>>>>>> though.
"Bigger: not always worse."
"Understanding" doesn't mean much here
except lack thereof, and hypocrisy.
We only have "true axioms" because in
all their applications they've held up.
They "withstand", and, "overstand".
We cannot really understand the notion of true on the basis of meaning >>>>> by only examining how this applies to real numbers. We must broaden
the scope to every natural language expression.
When we do this then we understand that a "dead rat" is not any type >>>>> of "fifteen story office building" is a semantic tautology that cannot >>>>> possibly be false.
When we understand this then we have much deeper insight into the
nature
of mathematical axioms, they too must be semantic tautologies.
There's nothing wrong with Tertium Not Datur,
for the class of predicates where it applies.
Which is not all of them.
Leafing through Badiou's "Second Manifesto ... on Philosophy",
he sort of arrives at again "I am a Platonist, yet a sophisticated
not a vulgar one".
It seems quite a development when after Badiou's "First Manifesto ..." >>>> twenty years prior, that in the maturation of his philosophical
development he came again to arrive at truth as its own truth.
Tautology, identity, and equality, are not necessarily the same
thing, with regards to deconstructive accounts, and the distinction
of extensionality and intensionality, for sameness and difference,
with regards to affirmation and negation, in usual modes of
predicativity and quantifier disambiguation.
A semantic tautology is a term that I came up with that self-defines the >>> logical positivist notion of analytic truth. It seems that most people
succumbed to Quine's nonsense and decided to simply "not believe in"
{true on the basis of meaning}.
We know that the living animal {cat} is not any type of {fifteen
story office building} only because of {true on the basis of meaning}.
Geometry arising as natural and axiomless from "a geometry of
points and spaces" from which Euclid's geometry justly arises,
helps illustrate that deconstructive accounts work at the
structuralist and constructivist again, what makes for that
axiomatics is didactic, vis-a-vis, fundamentality.
Type and category are truly great ideas, it's true,
and they're modeled as first-class after a deconstructive
account of their concrete models, their abstract models.
Type, and category, have inversions, where for example
a cat is a feline animal, while a lion is king of the beasts.
The most usual sorts of is-a and has-a are copulas, there
are many sorts predicates of relation of relation, first-class.
The use/mention distinction has that a type is a type is a type,
that an instance of a type is-or-is-not an instance of a type,
that it's an instance of a type and is an instance of a type.
Distinction and contradistinction, have it so for type inversion,
that the abstract and the concrete, model each other.
Then for geometry (of space) and algebra (of words), there's
basically that space is infinite and words finite,
there's though a space of words and words of space.
Then, type theory and category theory, make for great bodies
of relation of relation, that for most, theory is a relation
of relation, and that there is always a first-class abstraction,
theory, at all.
So, an ontology is just a sample of data in a science.
The "strong metonymy", is the idea that there's a true ontology.
Of course, it's not absent a metaphysical moment.
A complete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
is an accurate model of the actual world. Not the same thing at all
as an ontology from philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
There is definitely a true ontology even if every aspect of all of
reality is a figment of the imagination. You will never be able to
experience what seems to be the physical sensations of taking your
puppies elevator to his fifteenth floor.
So, you use quasi-modal logic but proved to yourself
it's not quasi-modal?
You proved to yourself.
If you understand that you cannot take the elevator to the fifteen floor
of your puppy then you know that there are expressions that are true on
the basis of their meaning. Quine could never get this.
One doesn't get a free pass from the argument and rhetoric
and discourse of the limits of ontology without an encompassing
reason and discourse on the completion of an ontology, a body of
knowledge, that seems an insufferable ignorance and it's not invincible.
There are billions of things just like puppyies are
not fifteen story office buildings.
The usual notion of the quasi-modal model of the world,
sort of lacks contingency and temporality and a modality
everywhere, why it's called quasi-modal, because it's just
ignorant that it's not actually modal (temporal).
There is no reason why it can't have those things.
It's fair to say that Carnap and Quine and the Vienna schoolThe point is that because Quine could not understand how we know
and logical positivism after Boole and Shopenhauer and Derrida
sort of arrives at a big angsty withdrawal from a true theory
that's true with truth in it, while as well exploring the
a-letheia the traditional notion of disclosing what are not
un-truths, "remembering again for the first time", and all
these aspects of the canon of the technical philosophy that
are so because there's sort of before-Hegel and after-Hegel,
that Hegel's sort of included in before-Hegel, while at the
same time claimed by after-Hegel, that we are not new Hegelians.
Much like Kant leaves the Sublime _in_ the theory, as the
least "silver thread", connecting a proper metaphysics to
the physics and it's a science, Hegel makes for both a
fuller dialectic, and, besides Nothing, Hegel's a Platonist, too.
Then, with Wittgenstein and Nietzsche and Heidegger as,
"anti-Plato's, and Platonists again", then Gadamer arrives
at "Amicus Plato, period" and Badiou "you know, I'm a Platonist
again", what I think of your machine mind is that it doesn't
have a first-class mental maturity of an object sense of
objectivity.
You know, fifteen story buildings don't have thirteenth floors, ...,
in some places.
that all bachelors are unmarried he might not also accept that no
puppy is a fifteen story office buildings.
It would be organized such the reasoning with formalized
I can surely appreciate a grand ontology, yet, in terms of
the Ontological Commitment, and what one makes of an
Ontological Commitment, that fact that you have given yours
to a bitmap sort of arrives that being considered lacking
a more thorough and reasoned goal of "Ontological Commitment:
Reason, Rationality, the Purely Technically Philosophical,
and Science, and the Empirical, the Phenomenological",
is something that one can leave or keep, instead of being
just awash and adrift in the 0's and 1's.
natural language would be tree walks.
It may be all 0's and 1's down there, yet it's all
true and false up there, and here in the middle is
a sort of Objectivism.
What's above is as what is below,
a finite bitmap is so many scrawls
a stick, in the sand, of the beach, to reckon.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 32:28:23 |
| Calls: | 6,908 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,376 |
| Messages: | 5,428,088 |
| Posted today: | 1 |