On 4/22/2023 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/22/23 6:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/22/2023 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/22/23 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/2023 4:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/22/23 5:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/22/2023 4:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/22/23 5:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/23 10:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> G is unprovable because it is self-contradictory, making it
>>>>>>>>>> erroneous.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since you don't understand the meaning of self-contradictory,
>>>>>>>>> that claim is erroneous.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When G asserts its own unprovability in F:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But Godel's G doesn't do that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any proof of G in F requires a sequence of inference steps in F
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> prove that they themselves do not exist in F.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is of course impossible to prove in F that a statement is true
>>>>>>> but not provable in F.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't need to do the proof in F,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To prove G in F you do.
>>>>>> Otherwise you are doing the same cheap trick as Tarski:
>>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you don't understand how to prove that something is "True in F"
>>>>> by doing the steps in Meta-F.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just showed you how Tarski proved that the Liar Paradox expressed
>>>> in his theory is true in his meta-theory.
>>>
>>> No, he didn't, he showed that *IF* a certain assuption was true, then
>>> the Liar's paradox would be true, thus that assumption can not be true.
>>>
>>
>> When one level of indirect reference is applied to the Liar Paradox it
>> becomes actually true. There was no "if".
>>
>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" <IS> TRUE.
>>
>>> Your
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We can do the same thing when G asserts its own unprovability in F.
>>>> G cannot be proved in F because this requires a sequence of inference
>>>> steps in F that prove that they themselves do not exist in F.
>>>
>>> Right, you can't prove, in F, that G is true, but you can prove, in
>>> Meta-F, that G is true in F, and that G is unprovable in F, which is
>>> what is required.
>>>
>>
>> When G asserts its own unprovability in F it cannot be proved in F
>> because this requires a sequence of inference steps in F that prove that
>> they themselves do not exist.
>>
>> Meta-F merely removes the self-contradiction the same way Tarski's Meta-
>> theory removed the self-contradiction.
>>
>>
>>> You are just showing that your mind can't handle the basics of logic,
>>> or truth.
>>>
>>
>> It may seem that way to someone that learns things by rote and mistakes
>> this for actual understanding of exactly how all of the elements of a
>> proof fit together coherently or fail to do so.
>>
>>> It sounds like you are too stupid to learn, and that you have
>>> intentionaally hamstrung yourself to avoid being "polluted" by
>>> "rote-learning" so you are just self-inflicted ignorant.
>>>
>>> If you won't even try to learn the basics, you have just condemned
>>> yourself into being a pathological liar because you just don't any
>>> better.
>>>
>>
>> I do at this point need to understand model theory very thoroughly.
>>
>> Learning the details of these things could have boxed me into a corner
>> prior to my philosophical investigation of seeing how the key elements
>> fail to fit together coherently.
>>
>> It is true that the set of analytical truth is simply a set of semantic
>> tautologies. It is true that formal systems grounded in this foundation
>> cannot be incomplete nor have any expressions of language that are
>> undecidable. Now that I have this foundation I have a way to see exactly
>> how the concepts of math diverge from correct reasoning.
>>
>>>>
>>>> You and I can see both THAT G cannot be proved in F and WHY G cannot be
>>>> proved in F. G cannot be proved in F for the same pathological
>>>> self-reference(Olcott 2004) reason that the Liar Paradox cannot be
>>>> proved in Tarski's theory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which he didn't do, but you are too stupid to understand claissic
>>> arguement forms.
>>>
>>
>> It is not that I do not understand, it is that I can directly see
>> where and how formal mathematical systems diverge from correct reasoning.
>
> But since you are discussing Formal Logic, you need to use the rules of
> Formal logic.
>

I have never been talking about formal logic. I have always been talking
about the philosophical foundations of correct reasoning.

> The other way to say it is that your "Correct Reasoning" diverges from
> the accepted and proven system of Formal Logic.
>

It is correct reasoning in the absolute sense that I refer to.
If anyone has the opinion that arithmetic does not exist they are
incorrect in the absolute sense of the word: "incorrect".

>>
>> Because you are a learned-by-rote person you make sure to never examine
>> whether or not any aspect of math diverges from correct reasoning, you
>> simply assume that math is the gospel even when it contradicts itself.
>
> Nope, I know that with logic, if you follow the rules, you will get the
> correct answer by the rules.
>
> If you break the rules, you have no idea where you will go.
>

In other words you never ever spend any time on making sure that these
rules fit together coherently.

> As I have told you before, if you want to see what your "Correct > Reasoning" can do as a replaceent logic system, you need to start at the
> BEGINNING, and see wht it gets.
>

The foundation of correct reasoning is that the entire body of
analytical truth is a set of semantic tautologies.

This means that all correct inference always requires determining the
semantic consequence of expressions of language. This semantic
consequence can be specified syntactically, and indeed must be
represented syntactically to be computable.

> To just try to change things at the end is just PROOF that your "Correct
> Reasoning" has to not be based on any real principles of logic.
>
> Since it is clear that you want to change some of the basics of how
> logic works, you are not allowed to just use ANY of classical logic
> until you actually show what part of it is still usable under your
> system and what changes happen.
>

Whenever an expression of language is derived as the semantic
consequence of other expressions of language we have valid inference.

The semantic consequence must be specified syntactically so that it can
be computed or examined in formal systems.

Just like in sound deductive inference when the premises are known to be
true, and the reasoning valid (a semantic consequence) then the
conclusion is necessarily true.

> Considering your current status, I would start working hard on that
> right away, as with your current reputation, once you go, NO ONE is
> going to want to look at your ideas, because you have done such a good
> job showing that you don't understand how things work.
>

My reputation on one very important group has risen to quite credible

> I haven't been able to get out of you exactly what you want to do with
> your "Correct Reasoning", and until you show a heart to actually try to
> do something constructive with it, and not just use it as an excuse for
> bad logic, I don't care what it might be able to do, because, frankly, I
> don't think you have the intellect to come up with something like that.
>

Until we establish the foundation of correct reasoning in terms of a
consistent and complete True(L,X) all AI systems will be anchored in the
shifting sands of opinions.

> But go ahead and prove me wrong, write an actual paper on the basics of
> your "Correct Reasoning" and show how it actually works, and compare it
> to "Classical Logic" and show what is different. Then maybe you can
> start to work on showing it can actually do something useful.
>

The most important aspect of the tiny little foundation of a formal
system that I already specified immediately above is self-evident:
True(L,X) can be defined and incompleteness is impossible.

People that spend 99.99% of their attention on trying to show errors in
what I say rather than paying any attention understanding what I say
might not notice these dead obvious things

>>>>> Just shows you are ignorant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Too bad you are going to die in such disgrace.
>>>>>
>>>>> All you need to do is show that there exist a (possibly infinte)
>>>>> set of steps from the truth makers in F, using the rules of F, to
>>>>> G. Youy don't need to actually DO this in F, if you have a system
>>>>> that knowns about F.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your mind is just too small.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

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