On 12/8/23 12:29 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/7/2023 6:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/7/2023 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/6/2023 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/6/2023 4:35 PM, Jim Burns wrote:
>>>>> On 12/6/2023 4:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/6/2023 3:49 PM, Jim Burns wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/6/2023 4:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems that you ignored all of
>>>>>>>> my important points.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> excludes unknown truths
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> your most important point.
>>>>>>> YMMV.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unknown truths are at least as capable of
>>>>>>> killing you as known truths.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Philosophically I am only referring to
>>>>>> the analytic side of
>>>>>> the analytic / synthetic distinction.
>>>>>> That excludes physical reality where
>>>>>> things can kill you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fascinating.
>>>>> Would you like me to tell you about
>>>>> global warming?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you try again and ask to have
>>>>>>>> anything that you don't understand
>>>>>>>> explained?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True(qnff) ?
>>>>>>> ¬True(qnff) ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True(finseq) ?
>>>>>>> ¬True(finseq) ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True(natnum) ?
>>>>>>> ¬True(natnum) ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That all seems to be gibberish to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider reading the post to which you respond.
>>>>>
>>>>> qnff =
>>>>> | Q is not-first false
>>>>>
>>>>> finseq =
>>>>> | If this finite sequence of claims
>>>>> | holds a false claim,
>>>>> | then it holds a first false claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> Abbreviate
>>>>> a definition of "n is a natural number"
>>>>> as "n is a natrual number.
>>>>>
>>>>> natnum =
>>>>> | n is a natural number
>>>>> | if and only if
>>>>> | n satisfies the definition of natural number
>>>>>
>>>>> ----
>>>>> Consider the claim qnff =
>>>>> | Q is not-first-false in
>>>>> | ⟨… P∨Q ¬P Q …⟩
>>>>> |     t   f t
>>>>> |     t   t t
>>>>> |     t   f f
>>>>> |     f   t f
>>>>> |
>>>>> True(qnff) ?
>>>>> ¬True(qnff) ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider the claim finseq =
>>>>> | For finite sequence ⟨foo … bar⟩
>>>>> | if ⟨foo … bar⟩ holds a false claim,
>>>>> | then it holds a first false claim.
>>>>> |
>>>>> True(finseq) ?
>>>>> ¬True(finseq) ?
>>>>>
>>>>> _Abbreviate_
>>>>> | n ends ordered ⟨0,…,n⟩ such that,
>>>>> | for each split Fᣔ<ᣔH of ⟨0,…,n⟩
>>>>> | some i‖i+1 is last‖first in F‖H,  and
>>>>> | 0‖n is first‖last in ⟨0,…,n⟩
>>>>> | for
>>>>> | non-0 non-doppelgänger non-final i+1
>>>>> as
>>>>> | n is a natural number
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider the claim natnum =
>>>>> | n is a natural number
>>>>> | if and only if
>>>>> | n ends ordered ⟨0,…,n⟩ such that,
>>>>> | for each split Fᣔ<ᣔH of ⟨0,…,n⟩
>>>>> | some i‖i+1 is last‖first in F‖H,  and
>>>>> | 0‖n is first‖last in ⟨0,…,n⟩
>>>>> | for
>>>>> | non-0 non-doppelgänger non-final i+1
>>>>> |
>>>>> True(natnum) ?
>>>>> ¬True(natnum) ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you expecting these answers to change
>>>>> if, for example, a proof of the Goldbach
>>>>> conjecture is discovered?
>>>>>
>>>>> Please explain.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you understand what this steps of
>>>>>> the Tarski proof says:
>>>>>> (3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the problem:
>>>>>
>>>>> You:
>>>>>> That all seems to be gibberish to me.
>>>>
>>>> For you to understand what I am saying you must learn a little
>>>> philosophy.
>>>>
>>>> The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis shows that there may be some
>>>> concepts that cannot be expressed within the scope of the
>>>> terms of logic.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
>>>>
>>>> Everything that is true on the basis of its meaning:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>>>>
>>>> AKA the analytic side of the analytic / synthetic distinction
>>>> necessarily must have a connection from an expression
>>>> to this meaning as its truthmaker or it cannot possibly be true.
>>>>
>>>> Although within the conventional terms of logic there
>>>> may be some truths that cannot be proven there cannot
>>>> be analytic expressions of language that are true without
>>>> something making them true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have diligently accounted for the difference between analytical truth
>>> and analytical knowledge the former may require an infinite sequence of
>>> steps as its truthmaker.
>>>
>>> ∀L ∈ Formal_System ∀x ∈ Language(L)
>>> True(L,x) ≡ (T ⊢ x)
>>> False(L,x) ≡ (T ⊢ ¬x)
>>>
>>> Eliminates Tarski undefinability and Gödel incompleteness and forces
>>> the concept of truth in math and logic to conform to the way that it
>>> works everywhere else in the body of human knowledge: True(x) ≡ (⊢ x)
>>>
>>> If the Goldbach conjecture only has an infinite sequence of steps as
>>> its truthmaker and formal proofs do not allow an infinite sequence of
>>> steps then we have an analytical truth with no proof yet it still has a
>>> truthmaker.
>>>
>>
>> That there cannot be any analytic truth without a truthmaker
>> refutes the Tarski Undecidability theorem.
>>
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>
>> Tarski anchored his proof in an epistemological antinomy just like the
>> above quote: (3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True.
>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>
>> Epistemological antinomies cannot possibly have a truthmaker (not even
>> with an infinite number of steps) thus are simply untrue.
>>
>
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>
> Thus Gödel really screwed up. Epistemological antinomies are neither
> true nor false thus calling them undecidable is a terrible euphemism
> for non-truth-bearer.
>

Nope, because he never did what you say he did.

Your problem is you don't actually understand the proof, so you don't
know what he actually means here, but are just guessing at what he
"must" mean, because it is the only thing you can think of. But that
isn't it, and just shows your stupidity.

If you want to show me wrong here, show the step in the ACTUAL proof,
and not the commentary on it, where he does this wrong thing.

Somewhere step in the proof where he uses the antinomy in a way that
requires it to have a truth value.

It seems on of your fundamental problems is you don't understand what a
Logical Proof actually is, only how to argue.