On 4/26/23 12:06 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/25/2023 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/25/23 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
>>> unprovability. 15
>>
>>
>> Right, a statement in Meta-F proved from G.
>
> Not at all look at page 40 of the link.

Which is in a section written in Meta-F as is almost the whole paper.

>
>>
>>>
>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>> undecidability proof.
>>> (Gödel 1931:40)
>>>
>>
>> Right "Used" as in, establish a form that gets TRANSFORMED into th proof.
>>
>
> That the liar paradox cannot be proved or refuted because it is self-
> contradictory derives an equivalent proof .

Nope.

>
>>> Antinomy
>>> ...term often used in logic and epistemology, when describing a
>>> paradox or unresolvable contradiction.
>>> https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Antinomy
>>>
>>> Gödel, Kurt 1931.
>>> On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica And
>>> Related Systems
>>>
>>> https://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/pj2943kt/Fall%202015/Promotion%20Application/Previous%20Years%20Article%2022%20Materials/godel-1931.pdf
>>>
>>> On this basis we define a much more powerful F in a formal system
>>> having its own unprovability operator: ⊬
>>
>> Is such an operator actually computable? or possible to know the
>> answer of in general?
>>
>
> Prolog does it.

Nope, it can find SOME answers in LIMITED logic system.

Again, you confuse the sample case to the unified whole.

>
>> YOu are just showing you lack of understanding of how things work.
>>
>> YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW LOGIC WORKS.
>>
>
> Mere empty rhetoric utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning.

I could say the same about you.

>
> mindless idiots consider rhetoric much more convincing that correct
> reasoning. 40% of the electorate believed the lies about election fraud
> even though there was almost no evidence of any fraud that could have
> possibly change the results.
>
> What I am talking about is the philosophical foundations of correct
> reasoning. This is not at all the same things as studying a textbook and
> logic and fully understand every detail of this book.
>
> This latter view is a narrower perspective.

So, why do accept most of the conclusions made with the faultly logic
without question?

Do you know what statements are actually TRUE by your logic?

>
>> You can't just postulate that something exists and then use its
>> existance to prove something.
>>
>
> All correct reasoning begins with premises.

No, it begins with ASSUMPTIONS that are considered establishing Truth
Makers. Once you establish those, ALL statements after that need to be
shown to be derivable from those, or begin with the admission that you
are extending the system adding new axioms (and thus nothing following
can be pushed back into the original system without proof that it is
established without the new axioms)

>
>>>
>>> The eliminates the need for the complexity of arithmetization and
>>> diagonalization.
>>
>> So?
>>
>
> It simplifies the problem enough that the interaction between the
> elements of the problem is not masked by too many extraneous details.

But if it isn't the actual statement, it is a strawman.

>
>>>
>>> G := (F ⊬ G) means G is defined to be another name for (F ⊬ G)
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols
>>>
>>> ∃G ∈ F (G := (F ⊬ G))
>>> There exists a G in F that proves its own unprovability in F
>>>
>>> Within this much more powerful F a proof of G in F requires a sequence
>>> of inference steps in F that prove that they themselves do not exist.
>>>
>>
>> But since this is a DIFFERENT G, it doesn't disprove that Godel's G is
>> actually True but Unprovable.
>>
>
> It meets Gödel's equivalence requirements stated above.

Nope. It isn't Godel's statement.

>
>> Again, you fall into the trap of your own strawman.
>>
>> You can't argue that a statement can't be correct if you have replaced
>> the statement with something it isn't.
>>
>> You are just proving your stupiditiy.
>>
>
> An IQ more then two standard deviations above the mean is by no means
> any sort of stupid and you know it. You are flatly dishonest in your
> denigration.
>

Nope, you are proving your stupidity. You may have "tested" smart in
some test, but that doesn't mean you are smart in this field.

You beleive lies, you make up new lies, so you are stupid.

We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
unprovability. 15

14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof.
(Gödel 1931:40)

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

Gödel, Kurt 1931.
On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica And
Related Systems

https://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/pj2943kt/Fall%202015/Promotion%20Application/Previous%20Years%20Article%2022%20Materials/godel-1931.pdf

On this basis we define a much more powerful F in a formal system having
its own unprovability operator: ⊬

The eliminates the need for the complexity of arithmetization and
diagonalization.

G := (F ⊬ G) means G is defined to be another name for (F ⊬ G)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols

∃G ∈ F (G := (F ⊬ G))
There exists a G in F that proves its own unprovability in F

Within this much more powerful F a proof of G in F requires a sequence
of inference steps in F that prove that they themselves do not exist.

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

On 4/25/23 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
> unprovability. 15

Right, a statement in Meta-F proved from G.

>
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof.
> (Gödel 1931:40)
>

Right "Used" as in, establish a form that gets TRANSFORMED into th proof.

> Antinomy
> ...term often used in logic and epistemology, when describing a paradox
> or unresolvable contradiction.
> https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Antinomy
>
> Gödel, Kurt 1931.
> On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica And
> Related Systems
>
> https://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/pj2943kt/Fall%202015/Promotion%20Application/Previous%20Years%20Article%2022%20Materials/godel-1931.pdf
>
> On this basis we define a much more powerful F in a formal system having
> its own unprovability operator: ⊬

Is such an operator actually computable? or possible to know the answer
of in general?

YOu are just showing you lack of understanding of how things work.

YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW LOGIC WORKS.

You can't just postulate that something exists and then use its
existance to prove something.

>
> The eliminates the need for the complexity of arithmetization and
> diagonalization.

So?

>
> G := (F ⊬ G) means G is defined to be another name for (F ⊬ G)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols
>
> ∃G ∈ F (G := (F ⊬ G))
> There exists a G in F that proves its own unprovability in F
>
> Within this much more powerful F a proof of G in F requires a sequence
> of inference steps in F that prove that they themselves do not exist.
>

But since this is a DIFFERENT G, it doesn't disprove that Godel's G is
actually True but Unprovable.

Again, you fall into the trap of your own strawman.

You can't argue that a statement can't be correct if you have replaced
the statement with something it isn't.

You are just proving your stupiditiy.

On 4/25/2023 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/25/23 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>> We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
>> unprovability. 15
>
>
> Right, a statement in Meta-F proved from G.

Not at all look at page 40 of the link.

>
>>
>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof.
>> (Gödel 1931:40)
>>
>
> Right "Used" as in, establish a form that gets TRANSFORMED into th proof.
>

That the liar paradox cannot be proved or refuted because it is self-
contradictory derives an equivalent proof .

>> Antinomy
>> ...term often used in logic and epistemology, when describing a
>> paradox or unresolvable contradiction.
>> https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Antinomy
>>
>> Gödel, Kurt 1931.
>> On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica And
>> Related Systems
>>
>> https://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/pj2943kt/Fall%202015/Promotion%20Application/Previous%20Years%20Article%2022%20Materials/godel-1931.pdf
>>
>> On this basis we define a much more powerful F in a formal system
>> having its own unprovability operator: ⊬
>
> Is such an operator actually computable? or possible to know the answer
> of in general?
>

Prolog does it.

> YOu are just showing you lack of understanding of how things work.
>
> YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW LOGIC WORKS.
>

Mere empty rhetoric utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning.

mindless idiots consider rhetoric much more convincing that correct
reasoning. 40% of the electorate believed the lies about election fraud
even though there was almost no evidence of any fraud that could have
possibly change the results.

What I am talking about is the philosophical foundations of correct
reasoning. This is not at all the same things as studying a textbook and
logic and fully understand every detail of this book.

This latter view is a narrower perspective.

> You can't just postulate that something exists and then use its
> existance to prove something.
>

All correct reasoning begins with premises.

>>
>> The eliminates the need for the complexity of arithmetization and
>> diagonalization.
>
> So?
>

It simplifies the problem enough that the interaction between the
elements of the problem is not masked by too many extraneous details.

>>
>> G := (F ⊬ G) means G is defined to be another name for (F ⊬ G)
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols
>>
>> ∃G ∈ F (G := (F ⊬ G))
>> There exists a G in F that proves its own unprovability in F
>>
>> Within this much more powerful F a proof of G in F requires a sequence
>> of inference steps in F that prove that they themselves do not exist.
>>
>
> But since this is a DIFFERENT G, it doesn't disprove that Godel's G is
> actually True but Unprovable.
>

It meets Gödel's equivalence requirements stated above.

> Again, you fall into the trap of your own strawman.
>
> You can't argue that a statement can't be correct if you have replaced
> the statement with something it isn't.
>
> You are just proving your stupiditiy.
>

An IQ more then two standard deviations above the mean is by no means
any sort of stupid and you know it. You are flatly dishonest in your
denigration.

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