Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

78 views

Skip to first unread message

Nov 18, 2023, 11:32:16 AM11/18/23

to

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

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

Nov 18, 2023, 1:05:23 PM11/18/23

to

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.
> 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.

>

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.

Nov 18, 2023, 1:16:21 PM11/18/23

to

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
> 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.

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.

Nov 18, 2023, 1:40:52 PM11/18/23

to

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.

Nov 18, 2023, 1:48:16 PM11/18/23

to

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.

Nov 18, 2023, 1:56:45 PM11/18/23

to

> 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)

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.

>

>

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.

Nov 18, 2023, 9:41:04 PM11/18/23

to

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.

Nov 19, 2023, 7:36:02 AM11/19/23

to

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.

>

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.

Nov 19, 2023, 11:19:32 AM11/19/23

to

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.

not a truth bearer, (within this formal system) thus epistemological

antinomies are excluded and unknowns are excluded and there is nothing

else left over.

Nov 19, 2023, 12:48:09 PM11/19/23

to

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.

>

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.

Nov 19, 2023, 1:08:18 PM11/19/23

to

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.

Nov 19, 2023, 1:30:00 PM11/19/23

to

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.

Nov 19, 2023, 3:40:21 PM11/19/23

to

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.
> 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.

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.

Nov 19, 2023, 4:49:41 PM11/19/23

to

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.

Nov 19, 2023, 6:02:06 PM11/19/23

to

isn't true.

>

> When we arbitrarily limit the set of truthmakers then this arbitrarily

> limit screws everything up.

is your failing.

>

> To define a proof as a finite set of inference steps creates the

> artificial notion of unprovable truths.

>

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.

Nov 19, 2023, 6:32:21 PM11/19/23

to

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)

Nov 19, 2023, 7:01:15 PM11/19/23

to

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.

Nov 19, 2023, 7:15:21 PM11/19/23

to

...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.

Nov 19, 2023, 7:47:08 PM11/19/23

to

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.

Nov 19, 2023, 8:03:08 PM11/19/23

to

wrong about that is changing the subject to something else.

Nov 19, 2023, 9:17:17 PM11/19/23

to

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.

Nov 19, 2023, 9:27:53 PM11/19/23

to

Nov 19, 2023, 9:43:54 PM11/19/23

to

"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.

Nov 19, 2023, 10:06:28 PM11/19/23

to

about this. Expecting a formal system to prove an epistemological

antinomy is ridiculous. How could Gödel make such a huge mistake?

Nov 19, 2023, 10:22:16 PM11/19/23

to

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?

>

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.

Nov 19, 2023, 10:58:22 PM11/19/23

to

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.

Nov 19, 2023, 11:30:35 PM11/19/23

to

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.

>

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.

Nov 19, 2023, 11:41:05 PM11/19/23

to

nonsense thus anyone saying that any proof can be based on them

is terribly incorrect.

Nov 20, 2023, 7:53:51 AM11/20/23

to

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.

Nov 20, 2023, 9:38:53 AM11/20/23

to

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.
nonsense thus anyone saying that any proof can be based on them

Nov 20, 2023, 10:02:33 AM11/20/23

to

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.
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.

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

Nov 20, 2023, 10:08:45 AM11/20/23

to

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

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".

Nov 20, 2023, 10:12:28 AM11/20/23

to

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
nonsense thus anyone saying that any proof can be based on them

(such as the above sentence) is terribly incorrect.

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.

Nov 20, 2023, 10:14:49 AM11/20/23

to

expression is like trying to make an angel food cake from dog shit.

Nov 20, 2023, 10:53:53 AM11/20/23

to

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)

Nov 20, 2023, 10:58:54 AM11/20/23

to

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".

>

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,
> 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.

>

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)

Nov 20, 2023, 11:13:13 AM11/20/23

to

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

Gödel
Nov 20, 2023, 11:51:49 AM11/20/23

to

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.

Nov 20, 2023, 12:18:48 PM11/20/23

to

"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

or unresolvable contradiction.

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Antinomy

Nov 20, 2023, 12:28:29 PM11/20/23

to

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.

Nov 20, 2023, 1:00:31 PM11/20/23

to

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.

Nov 20, 2023, 1:45:57 PM11/20/23

to

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),

Nov 20, 2023, 1:56:59 PM11/20/23

to

AKA every self-contradictory expression

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

inference steps proving that self-contradictory

expressions cannot be proven.

Nov 20, 2023, 2:08:14 PM11/20/23

to

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.

Nov 20, 2023, 2:25:17 PM11/20/23

to

"By this logic, any proof that mentions epistemological

antinomies are invalid"

Not at all. I didn't say anything like that.
antinomies are invalid"

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used

for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)

Nov 20, 2023, 2:42:07 PM11/20/23