Undecidable decision problems are abolished

[olcott]

ZFC was able to reject epistemological antinomies by screening
out the pathological self-reference derived by sets as members
of themselves. Russell's Paradox was eliminated be defining set
theory differently.

In the same way that Russell's Paradox was eliminated we can
get rid of other epistemological antinomies. It is pretty
obvious that epistemological antinomies are simply semantically
unsound.

When we define True(L, x) as (L ⊢ x) provable from the axioms
of L, then epistemological antinomies become simply untrue and
no longer show incompleteness or undecidability.

Since we have already fixed the undecidability issue of Russell's
Paradox by redefining set theory the precedent has already been
set that we can correct these issues by redefining the meaning
of their terms.

Because the undecidability of Russell's Paradox was fixed by changing
the meaning of the term {set theory} we can eliminate incompleteness
and undecidability by redefining meaning of the term {formal system}
as detailed above.



--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[Richard Damon]

On 11/18/23 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
> ZFC was able to reject epistemological antinomies by screening
> out the pathological self-reference derived by sets as members
> of themselves. Russell's Paradox was eliminated be defining set
> theory differently.
>
> In the same way that Russell's Paradox was eliminated we can
> get rid of other epistemological antinomies. It is pretty
> obvious that epistemological antinomies are simply semantically
> unsound.
>
> When we define True(L, x) as (L ⊢ x) provable from the axioms
> of L, then epistemological antinomies become simply untrue and
> no longer show incompleteness or undecidability.
>
> Since we have already fixed the undecidability issue of Russell's
> Paradox by redefining set theory the precedent has already been
> set that we can correct these issues by redefining the meaning
> of their terms.
>
> Because the undecidability of Russell's Paradox was fixed by changing
> the meaning of the term {set theory} we can eliminate incompleteness
> and undecidability by redefining meaning of the term {formal system}
> as detailed above.
>

But that doesn't abolish ALL "undecideable" decision problems.

Halting is still "Undecidable" by the meaning of the word, and the
actual problem doesn't have the "pathological self-reference" that you
are trying to refer to.

Your problem is that you don't seem to understand what a "reference"
actually is, and thus what a "self-reference" actually means.

Asking H to decide on a program that happens to be built on a copy of
the algorithm that H uses, is NOT a "reference". You only try to show
one, by creating a environment what isn't actually an "equivalent" to
the environment of a Turing Machine deciding on the representation of
another machine, and as such, your "H" isn't actually the equivalent of
any Turing Machine that meets the definition of a Halt Decider.

Yes, if you define that True means Provable, you can get a system that
dosn't have incompleteness, you also can't get the full set of
properties of the Natural Numbers in such a system.

Godel proves that by showing that from the established properties of the
Natural Numbers, you can construct a statement that IS TRUE, but
UNPROVABLE in that system.

Thus, he proves that you your system, must either not be able to show
the needed properties of the Natural Numbers, or it is inconsistant.

If you want to try to prove him wrong, you just need to start from your
logical basis, and then show that you actually CAN derive those
properties, and then prove that you system is still consistant.

This has been pointed out to you many times in the past, but it seems
that you understand that the task is just too great for your little
mind. This just points out that you ideas are actually worthless, as you
are postulating a fundamental change in the nature of logic, but then
are unable to show what that actually does.

Also, you don't understand that this idea isn't actually "new", but is
very similar to ideas that other have come up with, its just they
understand that their ideas are of limited use in restricted fields of
logic, while you don't understand that fact.

[olcott]

On 11/18/2023 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
> ZFC was able to reject epistemological antinomies by screening
> out the pathological self-reference derived by sets as members
> of themselves. Russell's Paradox was eliminated be defining set
> theory differently.
>
> In the same way that Russell's Paradox was eliminated we can
> get rid of other epistemological antinomies. It is pretty
> obvious that epistemological antinomies are simply semantically
> unsound.
>
> When we define True(L, x) as (L ⊢ x) provable from the axioms
> of L, then epistemological antinomies become simply untrue and
> no longer show incompleteness or undecidability.
>
> Since we have already fixed the undecidability issue of Russell's
> Paradox by redefining set theory the precedent has already been
> set that we can correct these issues by redefining the meaning
> of their terms.
>
> Because the undecidability of Russell's Paradox was fixed by changing
> the meaning of the term {set theory} we can eliminate incompleteness
> and undecidability by redefining meaning of the term {formal system}
> as detailed above.

We can eliminate incompleteness and undecidability derived by
epistemological antinomies by redefining meaning of the term

{formal system} as detailed above.

For the halting problem H(D,D) simply screens out and rejects
input D that is defined to do the opposite of whatever Boolean
value that H returns.

Pathological self-reference {AKA epistemological antinomies}
cannot possibly create incompleteness or undecidability when it
is simply screened out as erroneous.

[Richard Damon]

Yes, you CAN try to redefine them, but then you end up with a very weak
logic system.

Note, The "Halting Problem" doesn't have a Pathological Self-Reference
in its definition, so that isn't the problem. All you doing is limiting
yourself to non-Turing complete computation systems, just like you are
limiting yourself to system that can't actually handle the full
properties of the natural numbers.

You are just showing how little you understand what you are talking about.

[olcott]

When we imagine that every detail of the body of human
knowledge has been formalized as higher order logic then
the only incompleteness are unknowns.

This is the way that human knowledge actually works:

True(L,x) is defined as (L ⊢ x)
False(L,x) is defined as (L ⊢ ~x)

then
epistemological antinomies are simply rejected as not truth
bearers and do not derive incompleteness or undecidability.

[Richard Damon]

And you can't do that in a system that defined True to be provabl.

> This is the way that human knowledge actually works:
>
> True(L,x) is defined as (L ⊢ x)
> False(L,x) is defined as (L ⊢ ~x)

Nope, FALSE statement.

We know there are things that are true that we can not actually prove.

Maybe you don't understand that fact, because your mind is too limited.

>
> then
> epistemological antinomies are simply rejected as not truth
> bearers and do not derive incompleteness or undecidability.
>
>

But that doesn't get rid of "undecidable" cases, as not all of them are
based on epistemological antinomies.

In fact, (almost) no one in classical logic think that epistemolgocial
antinomies are anything other than not a truth bearer. You are just
showing that you don't really understand how those work.

[olcott]

Rebutting things that I did not actually say might seem like a rebuttal
to gullible fools.

People that are paying 100% complete attention will see that such
rebuttals are the strawman error even if unintentional.

People that physically don't have the capacity to pay close attention
may commit the strawman error much of the time and not even know it.

[Richard Damon]

And what did I rebut that you didn't say?

Making false claims is evidence of deceit. This seems to be your basic
method of arguement, claim that someone says something different then
what they actually said by miss-using their words, and building a
strawman argument from it.

>
> People that are paying 100% complete attention will see that such
> rebuttals are the strawman error even if unintentional.
>
> People that physically don't have the capacity to pay close attention
> may commit the strawman error much of the time and not even know it.
>

Yep, which describes yourself. You don't understand what people are
telling you, perhaps because you don't understand that core concepts of
formal logic, so you just presume they are talking non-sense.

That is like how you claim there is a "pathological self-reference" in
the Halting Problem, when you can't even point out where there is an
actual "Reference" (as defined in the field) in the first place.

Look, youi don't even understand the basic rules of argument, that you
respond TO the counter-point and show what is wrong with it.

By just replying to yourself, and just mentioning what you are trying to
"refute", you are just highlighting that your logic can't actually
handle the case, but you need to create a strawman in you description
and fight that,

Maybe I should just start pointing out your errors in ogical argument
form to point out your utter incapability of actually showing what you
claim.

It does seem ironic that someone who wants to claim that Truth only
comes out of proofs, can't actually form a correctly formed proof, but
seems to think that a verbal argument is the same thing.

Maybe that works in the fuzzy field of abstract philosophy, but it
doesn't cut it in actual formal logic, which is why you seem to fall so
flat. Some how you have a blind spot that the rules of logic ARE actual
rules to follow, not merely suggestions.

[olcott]

This includes all human knowledge and excludes unknowns.
Your prior reply only glanced at a few of my words and thus did not
bother to notice that I was talking about the set of human knowledge.

> then
> epistemological antinomies are simply rejected as not truth
> bearers and do not derive incompleteness or undecidability.

Every expression that is neither provable nor refutable is rejected as
not a truth bearer, (within this formal system) thus epistemological
antinomies are excluded and unknowns are excluded and there is nothing
else left over.

[Richard Damon]

But you confuse "Human Knowledge" with actual "Truth", so is just a LIE,

This means that the logic system you are trying to work in is either
inconstant or very weak., as there are statements that can be proven
that they must be either True or False, but we don't (yet) know which it
is, and even understand that it might be actually IMPOSSIBLE to prove
within the system, but your FLAWED systen says they can NOT be true
until proven, and in fact, the statment L ⊢ x needs the proof to be
know, since we need the existance of the proof to be proven for the
statement to be true.

So, either the domain of logic it can handle must be limited to just
that which works under that definition, which excludes many properties
of even the simple Natural Numbers, or it become inconsistant as
statements that can be show must be truth bearers, as they must be True
or False, because they don't allow a middle ground (like the existance
of a number with a computable property) but also, they might not be
either True or False, as we can't actually prove that existance.

>
>> then
>> epistemological antinomies are simply rejected as not truth
>> bearers and do not derive incompleteness or undecidability.
>
> Every expression that is neither provable nor refutable is rejected as
> not a truth bearer, (within this formal system) thus epistemological
> antinomies are excluded and unknowns are excluded and there is nothing
> else left over.
>

So, you INCORRECTLY reject as a "Truth Bearer" statements that ACTUALLY
HAVE A TRUTH VALUE, but that value is just not known.

In other words, you don't understand what TRUTH actually is because of
your own stupidity.

This shows that your mind is just a few sizes too small and doesn't (and
perhaps can't) understand the complexity that simple logic can generate.

[olcott]

Reviewers that don't give a rat's ass about truth and only want to stay
in rebuttal mode even if must lie to do it will refuse to acknowledge
that expressions that require infinite proofs to resolve their true
value are necessarily not truth bearers in formal systems that do not
allow infinite proofs.

[Richard Damon]

Is this comment directed at YOURSELF? since that is who you are replying
to. I guess you are admitting you don't give a rat's ass about what
actually is Truth, but just want to stay in your unsubstantiated
"rebuttal" mode, leaving all the errors pointed out in your logic as
accepted.

Note, since your definition of "Truth" isn't actually a definition of
Truth but of Knowledge, YOU are the one making the lies.

Also, your claim that "that expressions that require infinite proofs to

resolve their true value are necessarily not truth bearers in formal

systems that do not allow infinite proofs." is just an INCORRECT STATEMENT.

"Standard" Logic allows statements to establish there truth with
infinite chains even though proofs, being related to knowledge, needs to
be finite.

If you can find any "official" support for your claim, give it or you
are admitting that you are just a stupid liar.

Then, if you want to establish that changed rule as part of your logic,
show what you logic can do. As I have pointed out many times, you are
free to build a new logic system under the rules of formal logic, with
what ever definitions you want, it then just get put on you to establish
what that logic system can do, and you can't just borrow proofs based on
system with a different set of rules. This will mean you will need to
learn enough of "primative logic" to understand what rules get impacted
by this change. My first guess is this is far above your ability.

[Richard Damon]

On 11/19/23 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>

> Reviewers that don't give a rat's ass about truth and only want to stay
> in rebuttal mode even if must lie to do it will refuse to acknowledge
> that expressions that require infinite proofs to resolve their true
> value are necessarily not truth bearers in formal systems that do not
> allow infinite proofs.

Simple thought experiment for you on that claim.

Question, does a number exist which satisifies some particular
computable property?

Such a question must be True or False, as either such a number exists or
it doesn't, and thus either assertion is a "Truth Bearer" by definition.

It is at least conceivably possible, that the only proof that such a
number doesn't exist is to test every possible number, and thus require
an "infinite proof" to establish this fact, so either the non-existance
of a number that satisfies some property might not actually be a "Truth
Bearer" by your definition, even though we KNOW, by the form of the
question, that it must be true or false, and thus be a Truth Bearer by
definition.

Also, by your definition, the question of the question about if that
statement was a Truth Bearer might not be a Truth Bearer, as to show
that there does not exist a finite proof of that property might not be
actually provable in a finite number of steps.

In fact, if you COULD actually prove in a finite number of steps that
you can't prove the statement in a finite number of steps, that could be
used as a proof of the statement that such a number doesn't exist (since
the existance of such a number, if one exists, is provable in a finite
number of steps by starting from that number and computing the answer,
showing it has the property.

This means you logic system sometimes can't actually ask questions until
it knows the answer.

[olcott]

When we stipulate that a truthmaker is what-so-ever makes an expression
of language true then we can know by tautology that every truth has a
truthmaker.

When we arbitrarily limit the set of truthmakers then this arbitrarily
limit screws everything up.

To define a proof as a finite set of inference steps creates the
artificial notion of unprovable truths.

[Richard Damon]

So, just because we can't prove the statement true, doesn't mean it
isn't true.

>
> When we arbitrarily limit the set of truthmakers then this arbitrarily
> limit screws everything up.

Right, so you limiting Truthmakership to only things that are provable
is your failing.

>
> To define a proof as a finite set of inference steps creates the
> artificial notion of unprovable truths.
>

So?

Proof is in the domain of knowledge, and since we can only know things
that we can establish by our own finite capabilities, means that proofs
are normally limited to finite operations.

In the same way that "Computable", means we can get the answer in a
finite number of steps, "Provable" means we can demonstrate the truth of
the statement in a finite number of steps.

I guess this goes back to your silly idea that you are a divine being
not bound by the finiteness of mortals, but on the other hand, you
actually are bound by the finiteness of yourself, thus showing that you
can't be divine.

You still don't understand the difference between Knowledge and Truth,
it seems, in part, due to not understanding the properties of the
infinite (or even the unbounded).


Yes, I believe there are logic system that allow for something called a
"Proof" to be unbounded in length, but such systems will have issues
with defining knowledge.

If you want to work in such fields, just say so, and confine yourself to
them, and not assume that you can just transfer information between
fields that have different logical basis. That leads to the same sort of
problems as presuming that trans-finite mathematics holds the same
properties as the mathematics of finite numbers (like the Reals). They
don't.

[olcott]

My most important point of all this is that epistemological antinomies
are finally understood to simply be semantic nonsense that do not
actually prove incompleteness, undecidability or undefinability.

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)

[Richard Damon]

No, you are just proving that you don't understand what you are talking
about.

Please try to show where Godel actually used an epistemological antinomy
in manner that required it to be anything other than a statement that
could not be logically resolved, and thus not a "Truth Bearer".

Not just this quote, which shows no such thing, but the step in the
proof that used it in a way that invalidates the proof.


The problem seems to be that you read non-technical descriptions of
things and think you understand what is actually being done in the proof.

All your words are just proving how ignorant you are of anything you
talk about.

Yes, Godel used a statement that was a epistemolgical antinomy,
something like "Statement X asserts that Statement X is not True", which
is, and most people understand it, to be such a statement that doesn't
not have a truth value.

He then converted it with a syntatic transformation that totally changes
its meaning into: "Statement X asserts that Statement X is not Provable
in F". Note, this transformed sentence is NOT an epistemological
antinomy in classic logic, as there is a truth value assignment that can
make the statement have a valid truth value, namely that X is a true
statement that is not provable.

Since the final statement that he gets, is one that MUST be a Truth
Beared, a question about the existance of a number that satisfies a
strictly computable property.

Yes, this proof does not work in a system that restricts truth to only
things that are provable, but that is not the logic system that Godel is
working in.

Your problem is that if you want to try to talk about such a logic
system with that limitation, your first step is to show that such a
system can meet the other requirements of the proof, that it supports
those need properties of the Natural Numbers. That is the problem you
are going to run into, the inevitable result of the limits to logic you
propose is that the logic system can not expand to the point of
generating those properties without falling into inconsistency.

[olcott]

Antinomy
...term often used in logic and epistemology, when describing a paradox
or unresolvable contradiction.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Antinomy

epistemological antinomies are unprovable because they are semantic
nonsense.

"If a formal system cannot prove gibberish nonsense then the formal
system is incomplete" is itself gibberish nonsense.

[Richard Damon]

But that isn't what Godel was doing.

You are just proving you are talking out of ignorance and YOU are the
one speaking "gibberish".

The statement "G" that is shown to be True and unprovable is NOT an
epistemological antinomy, but a statement that most definitely has a
Truth Value, and thus CAN'T be an epistemoligical antinomy.

Again, you seem to like arguing with yourself and not actually answering
the errors pointed out in your arguments, meaning you are accepting the
errors as actual errors, and thus you are accepting that you statements
are in error, and that you are just repeating the errors to show your
ignorance.


Go ahead, keep digging the grave for your reputation. You are just
burying it deeper.

[olcott]

The only fake deceptive rebuttal to the fact that Gödel was definitely
wrong about that is changing the subject to something else.

[Richard Damon]

Which just PROVES you don't understand what you are talking about.

Your failure to answer the question I asked before proves this.

That shows that YOURS is the "fake deceptive rebuttal".

By your own logic, your statement is garbage because you mentioned using
epistemological antinomies.

So again, WHERE did he actually do this in his proof? Show the step
where he did it.

I bet your problem is you can't actually read any of the proof to see
what he is doing.

You are just too stupid to understand that you don't understand what you
are talking about.

[olcott]

[Richard Damon]

Again, talking to yourself showing who you actually think is doing the
"fake deceptive rebuttal".

And, you can't answer the question? You are just admitting that you are
just a stupid liar.

If he was actually wrong, you could show the point in the proof where he
did a wrong thing.

That fact you can't do that show that you are just being a stupid
ignorant liar.

As I said, by your logic, you just proved that your own proof must be
incorrect, as you also mention using epistemological antinomies.

[olcott]

On the other hand honest reviewers would say of course you are right
about this. Expecting a formal system to prove an epistemological
antinomy is ridiculous. How could Gödel make such a huge mistake?

[Richard Damon]

So, again, where in the proof did he do this wrong thing?

You can't show it, because he didn't do what you are claiming.

Your problem is you don't understand how the logic actually works.

>
> On the other hand honest reviewers would say of course you are right
> about this. Expecting a formal system to prove an epistemological
> antinomy is ridiculous. How could Gödel make such a huge mistake?
>

Except he didn't expect a formal system to prove an epistemological
antinomy, and the fact you imply that he claimed he did shows your
stupidity.

Yes, a real "Honest Reviewer" would see what Godel wrote, and see that
your claim that he was asking the system to prove an epistemological
antinomy is just a stupid lie on your part.

You can't even state the actual proposition that Godel put forward as
the true but unprovable statement in the system, you only see the
statements, in the meta-system, that can be derived from it.

You are just showing you fundamentally don't understand how logic or
truth or proof actually works.

You are just a LYING DISHONEST STUPID CHARLATAN that has been caught in
your lies and trying to fast talk out of your errors.

You have yet to present ANY actual proof of your claims, and have ducked
every request to provide something to actually back your claims,

Of course, since you actually know nothing about what you talk, you
can't do that, but only bluster.

Of course, you are so stupid, you think you are making your point, but
in truth, you are just proving to the world how utterly stupid you are.

If there was something to your ideas, you have buried it in your disgrace.

[olcott]

There is no way to correctly refute that Gödel was definitely wrong
about this.

I would go further and say the the strongest possible rebuttal cannot
do any better than complete nonsense. My reviewer already knows this.

[Richard Damon]

What are you trying to refute?

If you want to claim he actually claimed the need to prove a
epistemological antinomy, then show where he did that.

The above does NOT say that.

When put in context, it points to the fact that you can use the FORM of
an epistemological antinomy to form a similar (but logically valid)
statement about provability that shows that there exist statements which
are true but not provable.

This is based on the key difference between claims of a statements Truth
and it Provability. Provable -> True, but True does not imply Provable.
Not True -> Not Provable, but Not Provable does not imply not True.

This asymmetry is important, but apparently unintelligible to you, as
you can't seem to grasp the difference between factual truth and knowledge.

So, since you refuse to even attempt to show where he makes the claim
youy say he is wrong with, you are just plain guilty of using a strawman
arguement (which by your own definitions, makes you a despicable liar).


Now, if you want to refute the claim he ACTUALLY made with those words,
you need to show the error in his actual proof. Since the proof never
actually claims the need to prove an epistemological antinomy, your
argument is proved to be just more of your lies. The statement his base
proof used, was that the statement G was "There does not exist a Natural
Number G that satisfies a (particular primative recursive relationship)"
where that relationship is what most of the paper is spent building up.

Now, such a statement MUST be a truth bearer, as either there does exist
or there doesn't exist some Natural Number that meets that requirement.

Note also, most of the paper is written not working in the Field that
expresses the statement, but in a meta-field of that field, and in that
meta-field, he can prove that G must be True in F, and that G can not be
proven in F.

Again, G is a statement that can not, by definition, be an
epistemological antinomy, as by its nature, it must have a correct
logical answer. If it doesn't, then you are just claiming that all of
mathematics is just wrong, with no more evidence than you saying so.

Since Godel is able to show that G is in fact TRUE, that in itself shows
that G is not an epistemological antinomy, as by definition such a
statement can not be satisfied by either a True or False value.

So, you are just proving your ignorance and stupidity.

> I would go further and say the the strongest possible rebuttal cannot
> do any better than complete nonsense. My reviewer already knows this.
>

So, I guess you are just admitting that your mind is incapable of
understanding the arguement, because everything is just complete
nonsense to you.

That is YOUR problem, not the field of logics. That a total idiot can't
understand how it works is the problem of the idiot, not of logic.

If this is the best arguement you can present, you have just proven you
have wasted your life.

Your are even showing your utter childishness by acting like the mental
giant of a three year old and acting like you are arguing with yourself
because you don't have the strength to face the person you want to argue
with.

[olcott]

It is dead obvious that epistemological antinomies are semantic
nonsense thus anyone saying that any proof can be based on them
is terribly incorrect.

[Richard Damon]

So, you are agreeing that your proof, since it is based on them, i.e.
mentioning them, is terribly incorrect. Thank you for stipulating that.

You haven't shown that Godel used them in any way more than your own
description,

This just shows how ignorant you are of what you are taliking about.

If you want to try to show that the proof is actually based on an
epistemological antinomy has a truth value, show where he does that,
otherwise you are just admitting you don't have a clue and are just puffing.

Also, they aren't "non-sense", they have a lot of semantic meaning, they
just can't be resolved to a truth value, and in fact, can be a great
basis for statements that can be shown to NOT have a truth value, which
is a useful feature in some places.

[olcott]

It is dead obvious that epistemological antinomies are semantic
nonsense thus anyone saying that any proof can be based on them

(such as the above sentence) is terribly incorrect.

[Richard Damon]

So, you are agreeing that your proof, since it is based on them, i.e.
mentioning them, is terribly incorrect. Thank you for stipulating that.

You haven't shown that Godel used them in any way more than your own
description,

This just shows how ignorant you are of what you are taliking about.

If you want to try to show that the proof is actually based on an
epistemological antinomy has a truth value, show where he does that,
otherwise you are just admitting you don't have a clue and are just puffing.

Also, they aren't "non-sense", they have a lot of semantic meaning, they
just can't be resolved to a truth value, and in fact, can be a great
basis for statements that can be shown to NOT have a truth value, which
is a useful feature in some places.

Just repeating your false claim just proves that you have nothing to go on.

Answer the refutation, or you are just admitting you are a liar.

[Richard Damon]

On 11/20/23 9:38 AM, olcott wrote:

Also, this shows that you don't understand how logic works.

For example, the classical logical form of "Proof by Contradiction" is a
proof that in one sense of the word is "based" on an epistemological
antinomy, in that it is based on the fact that if from an "assumed true"
statement, you can prove an epistemological antinomy, then that
statement must be false.

If you want to try to define that such a logical argument is incorrect,
then you need to throw out most of the existing logical systems.

Of course, you have shown historically, that you don't understand how
any of the logic works, so it isn't a surprise that you don't understand
this.

You are just proving your utter ignorance of how any of this sort of
logic works, likely because you don't understand this "foreign" concept
of "Truth".

[olcott]

It is dead obvious that epistemological antinomies are semantic
nonsense thus anyone saying that any proof can be based on them
(such as the above sentence) is terribly incorrect.

Hopefully the one lying about this does not get the eternal
incineration in the Revelation 21:8 lake of fire required for
"all liars" that seems far too harsh.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints temporary purgatory
like option seems more appropriate.

[olcott]

Proof by contraction when one begins with a self-contradictory
expression is like trying to make an angel food cake from dog shit.

[Richard Damon]

Who said you started with a self contradictory expression?

You are just showing that you don't understand what is being talked about

You claim Godel starts with a self-contradictory statement, but you
can't actually show where it is, but need to use "simplification" that
aren't even in the logic system that the original statement was made in,
showing your total ignorance of how logic works

All you are doing is proving you are an ignorant pathological liar. (you
seem to be incapable of understanding the nature of your error, thus
PATHOLOGICAL liar)

[Richard Damon]

Also, this shows that you don't understand how logic works.

For example, the classical logical form of "Proof by Contradiction" is a
proof that in one sense of the word is "based" on an epistemological
antinomy, in that it is based on the fact that if from an "assumed true"
statement, you can prove an epistemological antinomy, then that
statement must be false.

If you want to try to define that such a logical argument is incorrect,
then you need to throw out most of the existing logical systems.

Of course, you have shown historically, that you don't understand how
any of the logic works, so it isn't a surprise that you don't understand
this.

You are just proving your utter ignorance of how any of this sort of
logic works, likely because you don't understand this "foreign" concept
of "Truth".


>

> Hopefully the one lying about this does not get the eternal
> incineration in the Revelation 21:8 lake of fire required for
> "all liars" that seems far too harsh.

I have no fear of that, but you should,

>
> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints temporary purgatory
> like option seems more appropriate.
>

So, you don't understand what the Bible actually says and go by the
words of "experts" that have been shown to be liars.

(Apologies to any Mormons offended by my remark, but try to take an
honest look at the history of Joseph Smith and see if he passes the
ancient biblical test of a Prophet)

[olcott]

"Who said you started with a self contradictory expression?"

Gödel

[Richard Damon]

Nope.

You just don't understand what he said.

Show me where he actually started his logic sequence from an actual
self-contradictory statement.

The ACTUAL step of the proof, not just the general statement that the
proof "uses" such a statement.

For instance, the argument by contradiction "uses" a self-contradictory
statement, but it doesn't start with one.

The thing that you don't seem to understand is that it is possible to
start with a sentence, like an epistemological antinomy, and then apply
a semantic and syntactic transformation to it that gives a brand new
statement that isn't logically dependent on the original sentence (and
so your argument fails) but is a way to find a statement with certain
properties.

Your tiny mind seems unable to conceive of this sort of operation, which
is why you are stuck in just low level logic forms.

[olcott]

"Who said you started with a self contradictory expression?"

Gödel just said that in the quote above when you understand that
epistemological antinomies are self-contradictory expressions.

*Antinomy*

...term often used in logic and epistemology, when describing a paradox
or unresolvable contradiction.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Antinomy

[Richard Damon]

No, he didn't say that he STARTED the logical chain of reasoning from
the statement in his proof. He USED it. But it wasn't as a proposition
in a logical inference, so your statement is itself, NONSENSE.

You are just proving that you don't understand what you are saying, and
your logic applies just as must to your claim as his.

YOUR statement starts with the use of an epistemological statements, and
thus it must be nonsense.

As I have pointed out, the fact that you can't go into the proof and
show where he actually did what you are claiming, and don't even attempt
it, just shows how utterly stupid your argument is and that you, at
least subconsciously understand that fact.

You just don't understand how logic works, what Truth actually is, or
how to do a proof.

The fact that you refuse to actually respond properly shows that you
have the mental age of a three year old.

You KNOW that, but refuse to acknowledge it, because you mind, and your
logic, is based on lie and deceit. You have been called out on this and
seem to be running scared. You are "projecting" your errors on others
that chalange you, reveling the errors that you know are in your logic.

Sorry, you have ruined your reputation, and are destined to be on the
eternal trash heap because that is all you are worth.

[olcott]

When you understand that an epistemological antinomy is a self-
contradictory expression then the above quoted sentence is
understood to be a ridiculous error.

Even gullible fools will know that changing the subject away
from the above quoted sentence is such a lame attempt at deception
that they will reject such attempts as nonsense.

[Richard Damon]

You are just repeating yourself and not answering the questions or
responding to the errors that have been pointed out to you repeatedly.

This shows that you are just an ignorant pathological lying TROLL.

I have not change the subject of the sentence, but gone to the core
meaning of the sentence. The fact you don't understand that shows your
utter ignorance of the topic.

I see just three possibilities.

1) You just don't understand the words being used, because you are just
totally untrained in the field, but then the honest responce would be to
ask about the terms that you seem to not understand. That you don't do
this says the even if this is the case, you are not interested in an
Honest discussion.

2) You honestly think these meen something different that how I am using
it. But in this case, again, you should be responding to specific points
to discuss why you see something different out of them. The fact you
don't, means that even if this is the case, you are not interested in an
Honest discussion.

and that just leaves:

3) You are not interested in an honest discussion, but knowing there are
problems with your arguement you intended to just ignore your errors and
propogate your LIES and FALSEHOODS to try to advance your BIG LIE.

Face it, you have lost, your plan has been ripped apart and shown to be
worthless. All you are doing it killing and buring your reputation, and
and small positive things that might be hiding in your ideas.

By doing this, you are just proving yourself to be the sort of person
described in the chapter of Revelation you like to quote, and that the
eternal burning trash heap is your destination, because that is all you
life is worth.

This does seem to match up with your previous cases of claiming it was
ok to have child pornograph, because "you were God", and your mental
derangement where you thought that somehow you were God, but were still
dying of cancer. (Hows that going for you, or was that just more lies),

[olcott]

...14 Every epistemological antinomy
AKA every self-contradictory expression

can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof...

AKA can likewise be used to provide a sequence of
inference steps proving that self-contradictory
expressions cannot be proven.

[Richard Damon]

So, you STILL don't understand what you are saying,

By this logic, any proof that mentions epistemological antinomies are
invalid, thus YOUR arguement that mentions them as a grounds to call
proofs invalid is also invalid.

You are just proving yourself to be an ignorant troll.

Try to answer the questions put to you, or just be labeled the troll you
are.


Note, he doesn't say that the sequence of inference steps actually used
the epistemological antinomy, but that concept seems above your
understanding, because you are just too stupid.

[olcott]

"By this logic, any proof that mentions epistemological
antinomies are invalid"

Not at all. I didn't say anything like that.

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)

*The above sentence proves that the above sentence is incorrect*