Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #103879
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- |
| Date | 2024-04-21 19:52 -0400 |
| Organization | i2pn2 (i2pn.org) |
| Message-ID | <v048rh$1q6th$3@i2pn2.org> (permalink) |
| References | (13 earlier) <v03j47$duff$1@dont-email.me> <PjKdnaQ6_-5iwLj7nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <v03poc$fc7j$1@dont-email.me> <v03vsb$1q6tg$2@i2pn2.org> <v040vp$gra8$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 4/21/24 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/21/2024 4:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/21/24 3:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2024 1:42 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 04/21/2024 10:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/21/2024 10:53 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/21/2024 08:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/21/2024 9:17 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04/20/2024 10:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 10:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 04/20/2024 02:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 3:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/19/2024 02:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2024 4:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/19/2024 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2024 11:51 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/17/2024 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2024 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidability proof..." (Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is literally true whether or not Gödel meant it literally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> literally true I am sure that he did mean it literally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Parphrased as*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is easy to understand that self-contradictory mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unprovable and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrefutable, thus meeting the definition of Incomplete(F).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characterized as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most common-sense types have "the truth is the truth is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as with regards to logical positivism and a sensitive,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thorough,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comprehensive, reasoned account of rationality and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects of the logical theory, makes for again a stonger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positivism, reinvigorated with a minimal "silver thread"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metaphysics, all quite logicist and all quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positivist, while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again structuralist and formalist, "the truth is the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plainly, modeling bodies of knowledge is at least two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is a formal logical model, and another is a scientific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as with regards to expectations, a statistical model.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For all the things to be in one modality, is that, as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief, is that belief is formally unreliable, while at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time, reasoned and rational as for its own inner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inter-consistency, all the other models in the entire modal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Axioms are stipulations, they're assumptions, and there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very well-reasoned ones, and those what follow the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflections on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relation, in matters of definition of structural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relation, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first-class typing, of these things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of the correct model of the actual world
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not assumptions. In this case stipulations are the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assignment of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic meaning to otherwise totally meaningless finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We do not merely assume that a "dead rat" is not any type of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "fifteen story office building" we know that it is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evident
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sole purpose of providing semantic meaning to otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless finite strings provide the ultimate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression that are true on the basis of its meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only other element required to define the entire body of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {expressions of language that are true on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is applying truth preserving operations to stipulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truths.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The axiomless, really does make for a richer accoutrement,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after metaphysics and the canon, why the objects of reason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and rationality, "arise" from axiomless deduction,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, our axiomatics and theory "attain" to this, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what is, "A Theory", at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One good theory. (Modeling all individuals and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contingencies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and their models of belief as part of the world of theory.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One good theory, "A Theory: at all", we are in it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A catalog and schema and dictionary and the finite is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bigger: not always worse."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Understanding" doesn't mean much here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> except lack thereof, and hypocrisy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We only have "true axioms" because in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all their applications they've held up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They "withstand", and, "overstand".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We cannot really understand the notion of true on the basis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by only examining how this applies to real numbers. We must
>>>>>>>>>>>>> broaden
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the scope to every natural language expression.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we do this then we understand that a "dead rat" is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "fifteen story office building" is a semantic tautology
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly be false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we understand this then we have much deeper insight
>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of mathematical axioms, they too must be semantic tautologies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's nothing wrong with Tertium Not Datur,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the class of predicates where it applies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is not all of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Leafing through Badiou's "Second Manifesto ... on Philosophy",
>>>>>>>>>>>> he sort of arrives at again "I am a Platonist, yet a
>>>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated
>>>>>>>>>>>> not a vulgar one".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems quite a development when after Badiou's "First
>>>>>>>>>>>> Manifesto
>>>>>>>>>>>> ..."
>>>>>>>>>>>> twenty years prior, that in the maturation of his philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>> development he came again to arrive at truth as its own truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tautology, identity, and equality, are not necessarily the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, with regards to deconstructive accounts, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction
>>>>>>>>>>>> of extensionality and intensionality, for sameness and
>>>>>>>>>>>> difference,
>>>>>>>>>>>> with regards to affirmation and negation, in usual modes of
>>>>>>>>>>>> predicativity and quantifier disambiguation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A semantic tautology is a term that I came up with that
>>>>>>>>>>> self-defines the
>>>>>>>>>>> logical positivist notion of analytic truth. It seems that most
>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>> succumbed to Quine's nonsense and decided to simply "not
>>>>>>>>>>> believe in"
>>>>>>>>>>> {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We know that the living animal {cat} is not any type of {fifteen
>>>>>>>>>>> story office building} only because of {true on the basis of
>>>>>>>>>>> meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Geometry arising as natural and axiomless from "a geometry of
>>>>>>>>>>>> points and spaces" from which Euclid's geometry justly arises,
>>>>>>>>>>>> helps illustrate that deconstructive accounts work at the
>>>>>>>>>>>> structuralist and constructivist again, what makes for that
>>>>>>>>>>>> axiomatics is didactic, vis-a-vis, fundamentality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Type and category are truly great ideas, it's true,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and they're modeled as first-class after a deconstructive
>>>>>>>>>>>> account of their concrete models, their abstract models.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Type, and category, have inversions, where for example
>>>>>>>>>>>> a cat is a feline animal, while a lion is king of the beasts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The most usual sorts of is-a and has-a are copulas, there
>>>>>>>>>>>> are many sorts predicates of relation of relation, first-class.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The use/mention distinction has that a type is a type is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> type,
>>>>>>>>>>>> that an instance of a type is-or-is-not an instance of a type,
>>>>>>>>>>>> that it's an instance of a type and is an instance of a type.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Distinction and contradistinction, have it so for type
>>>>>>>>>>>> inversion,
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the abstract and the concrete, model each other.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then for geometry (of space) and algebra (of words), there's
>>>>>>>>>>>> basically that space is infinite and words finite,
>>>>>>>>>>>> there's though a space of words and words of space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, type theory and category theory, make for great bodies
>>>>>>>>>>>> of relation of relation, that for most, theory is a relation
>>>>>>>>>>>> of relation, and that there is always a first-class
>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction,
>>>>>>>>>>>> theory, at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, an ontology is just a sample of data in a science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The "strong metonymy", is the idea that there's a true
>>>>>>>>>>>> ontology.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, it's not absent a metaphysical moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A complete
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
>>>>>>>>>>> is an accurate model of the actual world. Not the same thing
>>>>>>>>>>> at all
>>>>>>>>>>> as an ontology from philosophy:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is definitely a true ontology even if every aspect of
>>>>>>>>>>> all of
>>>>>>>>>>> reality is a figment of the imagination. You will never be
>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>> experience what seems to be the physical sensations of taking
>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>> puppies elevator to his fifteenth floor.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, you use quasi-modal logic but proved to yourself
>>>>>>>>>> it's not quasi-modal?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You proved to yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you understand that you cannot take the elevator to the fifteen
>>>>>>>>> floor
>>>>>>>>> of your puppy then you know that there are expressions that are
>>>>>>>>> true on
>>>>>>>>> the basis of their meaning. Quine could never get this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One doesn't get a free pass from the argument and rhetoric
>>>>>>>>>> and discourse of the limits of ontology without an encompassing
>>>>>>>>>> reason and discourse on the completion of an ontology, a body of
>>>>>>>>>> knowledge, that seems an insufferable ignorance and it's not
>>>>>>>>>> invincible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are billions of things just like puppyies are
>>>>>>>>> not fifteen story office buildings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The usual notion of the quasi-modal model of the world,
>>>>>>>>>> sort of lacks contingency and temporality and a modality
>>>>>>>>>> everywhere, why it's called quasi-modal, because it's just
>>>>>>>>>> ignorant that it's not actually modal (temporal).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no reason why it can't have those things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's fair to say that Carnap and Quine and the Vienna school
>>>>>>>>>> and logical positivism after Boole and Shopenhauer and Derrida
>>>>>>>>>> sort of arrives at a big angsty withdrawal from a true theory
>>>>>>>>>> that's true with truth in it, while as well exploring the
>>>>>>>>>> a-letheia the traditional notion of disclosing what are not
>>>>>>>>>> un-truths, "remembering again for the first time", and all
>>>>>>>>>> these aspects of the canon of the technical philosophy that
>>>>>>>>>> are so because there's sort of before-Hegel and after-Hegel,
>>>>>>>>>> that Hegel's sort of included in before-Hegel, while at the
>>>>>>>>>> same time claimed by after-Hegel, that we are not new Hegelians.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Much like Kant leaves the Sublime _in_ the theory, as the
>>>>>>>>>> least "silver thread", connecting a proper metaphysics to
>>>>>>>>>> the physics and it's a science, Hegel makes for both a
>>>>>>>>>> fuller dialectic, and, besides Nothing, Hegel's a Platonist, too.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then, with Wittgenstein and Nietzsche and Heidegger as,
>>>>>>>>>> "anti-Plato's, and Platonists again", then Gadamer arrives
>>>>>>>>>> at "Amicus Plato, period" and Badiou "you know, I'm a Platonist
>>>>>>>>>> again", what I think of your machine mind is that it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> have a first-class mental maturity of an object sense of
>>>>>>>>>> objectivity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You know, fifteen story buildings don't have thirteenth
>>>>>>>>>> floors, ...,
>>>>>>>>>> in some places.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The point is that because Quine could not understand how we know
>>>>>>>>> that all bachelors are unmarried he might not also accept that no
>>>>>>>>> puppy is a fifteen story office buildings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can surely appreciate a grand ontology, yet, in terms of
>>>>>>>>>> the Ontological Commitment, and what one makes of an
>>>>>>>>>> Ontological Commitment, that fact that you have given yours
>>>>>>>>>> to a bitmap sort of arrives that being considered lacking
>>>>>>>>>> a more thorough and reasoned goal of "Ontological Commitment:
>>>>>>>>>> Reason, Rationality, the Purely Technically Philosophical,
>>>>>>>>>> and Science, and the Empirical, the Phenomenological",
>>>>>>>>>> is something that one can leave or keep, instead of being
>>>>>>>>>> just awash and adrift in the 0's and 1's.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would be organized such the reasoning with formalized
>>>>>>>>> natural language would be tree walks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It may be all 0's and 1's down there, yet it's all
>>>>>>>>>> true and false up there, and here in the middle is
>>>>>>>>>> a sort of Objectivism.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What's above is as what is below,
>>>>>>>>>> a finite bitmap is so many scrawls
>>>>>>>>>> a stick, in the sand, of the beach, to reckon.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That makes for "relevance logic", that syllogism only makes sense
>>>>>>>> in terms among common types.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes exactly no one else could get this because they try
>>>>>>> to hide their ignorance with insults and disparagement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also for "relevance logic" is that "Ex Falso Quodlibet and
>>>>>>>> Material Implication" are _not_ a thing, and that a contradiction
>>>>>>>> about un-related/ir-relevant things say absolutely _nothing_
>>>>>>>> about things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes that is the exact error of modern logic.
>>>>>>> {The Moon is made of Green Cheese} proves {Donald Trump is God}
>>>>>>> In both the principle of explosion and valid deductive inference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes
>>>>>>> a form
>>>>>>> that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the
>>>>>>> conclusion
>>>>>>> nevertheless to be false.https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus enabling 'from falsehood, anything [follows]';
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I.e., "Russell is not the Pope, and Russell never was the Pope".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That works just fine for usual "common-sense" types, and
>>>>>>>> it really even reflects on "common" and "sense", and it's
>>>>>>>> why there's "relevance logic" at all from what otherwise
>>>>>>>> was just usual analysis because "classical quasi-modal
>>>>>>>> logic" has "EFQ+MI" and Principle of Explosion instead
>>>>>>>> of "Ex Falso Nihilum".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, one needn't have a "greater ontology" to establish
>>>>>>>> that the housecat or juvenile canine and the office tower
>>>>>>>> or a steamboat, while each things, have distinct properties
>>>>>>>> which effect their relations in usual enough is-a/has-a senses
>>>>>>>> or as with regards to any other collections of tuples in classes
>>>>>>>> and individuals and predicates that affect descriptions of
>>>>>>>> relations, which of course must be non-circular and
>>>>>>>> non-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The purpose of the greater knowledge ontology that already exists
>>>>>>> in the minds of most people is to provide computations with human
>>>>>>> reasoning. LLM systems have already computed in a few months what
>>>>>>> would take humans millions of man-years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems then first you put down the quasi-modal for
>>>>>>>> relevance logic its much more sensible framework,
>>>>>>>> then at least common-sense is much less insulted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc project already spent
>>>>>>> 1000 labor years fully formalizing all common sense. Without
>>>>>>> the help of LLM systems it would take millions of labor years
>>>>>>> to formalize the rest of human general knowledge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My usual biggest gripe is about EFQ+MI which
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not sure what you mean by MI.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> seems totally insouciant if not duplicitous,
>>>>>>>> and absolutely un-necessary, then about Tertium
>>>>>>>> Non Datur gets involved the multi-valent, and
>>>>>>>> the temporal and so on, then besides the usual
>>>>>>>> notions of of sputniks of quantification of the
>>>>>>>> usual roots of "logical" paradox, a deconstructive
>>>>>>>> account after modern fundamental formalisms
>>>>>>>> results a quite better approach to modern foudnations,
>>>>>>>> also modern fundamental formalist foundations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The sum total of all human general knowledge can be encoded
>>>>>>> in mostly in formalized natural language propositions. Some
>>>>>>> of this must be formalized using other formal languages.
>>>>>>> One can explain the details of writing C programs in English
>>>>>>> yet needs some actual C mixed into the explanation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We don't really need multi-valent logic. Mostly what we need
>>>>>>> is an enormously large number of axioms that are stipulated
>>>>>>> to have the Boolean value of true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can compress the space required for these axioms and make
>>>>>>> them much easier to process in an inheritance hierarchy knowledge
>>>>>>> ontology. We also refrain from directly encoding and facts of the
>>>>>>> world that can be derived from other facts of the world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> {Cats} <are> {Animals}
>>>>>>> {Animals} <are> {Living Things}
>>>>>>> thus no need to store
>>>>>>> {Cats} <are> {Living Things}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is already in the knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy.
>>>>>>> UML Inheritance {cat} ▷ {animal} ▷ {Living Thing}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A usual idea of a more robust deduction is also
>>>>>> that the premises have to be drawable as random
>>>>>> draws and that it results the same deduction
>>>>>> regardless the order of the draws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not idea what this could possibly mean.
>>>>> {Cats} <are> {Animals} can only be deduced from the
>>>>> axiom {Cats} <are> {Animals}.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I don't agree that being "valid deductive inference",
>>>>>> it not being sound given arbitrary order-senstive premises.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is valid deductive inference as shown by my analysis above:
>>>>> {The Moon is made of Green Cheese} proves {Donald Trump is God}
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is, a robust and sound and valid deductive inference,
>>>>>> has to be the same from any angle and any draw or any
>>>>>> serialization of the premises (or "premisses").
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we don't somehow have some aspects of semantic relevance
>>>>> directly encoded into our notion of formal systems of logic then we
>>>>> get
>>>>> {The Moon is made of Green Cheese} proves {Donald Trump is God}
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "EFQ+MI" is "Ex False Quodlibet plus Material
>>>>>> Implication", where "Material Implication" is neither
>>>>>> "material" nor "implication" and "not p, or q" does
>>>>>> not have a "truth value", and doesn't belong in
>>>>>> a "truth table",
>>>>>
>>>>> I totally agree with you on this. All of the other people on
>>>>> these forums take the steps of logic as forming their own
>>>>> foundation and thus are inherently correct even when they
>>>>> derive nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would replace implication with is a necessary consequence of.
>>>>> Making the unary operator □ also be applied to binary relations.
>>>>> ∃!fluffy ∈ Cats | (Fluffy □ Animal).
>>>>>
>>>>> They simply stipulate that the nonsense that they derive cannot
>>>>> possibly be nonsense on basis of their religious belief that the
>>>>> steps of logic are inherently infallible.
>>>>>
>>>>> They then go on to assert that anyone that does not hold this
>>>>> religious belief is totally ignorant about logic. They never
>>>>> realize that the issue is their own ignorance of the philosophy
>>>>> of logic.
>>>>>
>>>>>> with regards to why a usual "model"
>>>>>> in such a setting also isn't a model and usual "monotonicity"
>>>>>> in such a setting also isn't and a usual "entails"
>>>>>> in such a setting also isn't, that being why what
>>>>>
>>>>> A is a necessary consequence of B: A □ B seems to be entails.
>>>>>
>>>>>> you'll find in the field called "Comte's Boole's Russell's
>>>>>> logical positivism's 'classical' logic" is renamed its
>>>>>> more proper appellation "classical _quasi-modal_ logic".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is like, "ass|u|me", and "e fq mi", both considered
>>>>>> bad ideas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are almost the only one that every agreed with me on this.
>>>>> The only other one the agreed that EFQ is nonsense had their
>>>>> answer voted down to oblivion on SE. Logicians and Mathematicians
>>>>> have the firmly held religious belief that the rules of logic
>>>>> are inherently infallible and utterly ridicule anyone that
>>>>> fully understands all of the reasoning that proves otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> When this proof is presented to them they put their hands
>>>>> over their ears making sure to not hear a single word while
>>>>> shouting your stupid fool you don't know logic at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>> > The premises, of deductive inference, if they're in
>>>>>> a given order, _is another premise_, and when they're _not_,
>>>>>> then those _are not_.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Every sequence of inference steps must be in the proper order
>>>>> or there is no connection between inference steps.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea of "Large Language Model" is largely bunk,
>>>>>> a model of reasoning can be very compact.
>>>>>> Just having an arithmetic/vector coding of associated
>>>>>> values in types, is just an addressing scheme.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not actually largely bunk.
>>>>> It has the key issue that it lies its ass off.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination_(artificial_intelligence)
>>>>>
>>>>> Technology like this is the only feasible way that we can
>>>>> populate a knowledge ontology of the general knowledge of
>>>>> the actual world.
>>>>>
>>>>> This dialogue proves that it has the equivalent of human understanding
>>>>> that undecidable decision problems are really nothing more than yes/no
>>>>> questions defined to have no correct yes/no answer.
>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/ChatGPT_HP.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Schroedinger's cat, now, helps explores in concept
>>>>>> the nature of indeterminism, and why, inference and
>>>>>> reasoning is first-class, not follow-the-red-dot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What you get into is the box and circle modalities,
>>>> about when the transfer principle applies and
>>>> a heap is a heap is a heap or the Sorities,
>>>> matter of definition, not a paradox, disambiguated
>>>> in its quantifiers by disambiguating the universal quantifier,
>>>> into for: any/each/every/all, existential as unique or not,
>>>> the result _direct implication_ carries and with
>>>> ALL of De Morgan's rules of logic, simplifies things,
>>>> and excludes any sort "paradox".
>>>>
>>>> That a cat has a kingdom and a genus and species vis-a-vis
>>>> being in a class of a kingdom and genus and speciesas is-a, just
>>>> reflects that is-a and has-a are only about the predicates
>>>> and relations, predicate logic and the predicate calculus,
>>>> and the resulting logic large of relations, and not necessarily
>>>> to be confused with Tarski's "cylindrical" bits when for
>>>> example there is algebraic GEOMETRY and ALGEBRAIC geometry
>>>> and they're _two, different things_.
>>>>
>>>> I usually like to frame predicates as 'has-a' instead of
>>>> 'is-a', because, things change, and "is" just "is".
>>>>
>>>> It's all relations of course, predicates is relations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I often have said "anybody who buys or shills Material Implication
>>>> is a fool or a fraud". The _direct_ implication, or just plain
>>>> old implication, first of all fills all of De Morgan's rules of logic
>>>> both ways, and, does not need "Material Implication", which is neither,
>>>> at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Russell: was never, the Pope.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Things have Types. So, one should be familiar with C.S. Peirce
>>>> and the Lambda Calculus, yet, in the logic of the universals and
>>>> particulars, there is the besides Type Inversion, there are as
>>>> well quantifier ambiguities, simply courtesy quantification
>>>> and schemes or schemas, to be resolved with quantifier disambiguation
>>>> and the correct and adequate book-keeping of contingency the
>>>> modality in predication the relation a stroke, evaluation.
>>>>
>>>> (Judgment.)
>>>
>>> The Bottom line that you seem to be avoiding is that there really
>>> are expressions that are {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>
>> SOME statements are true based on their "meaning" (as you are defining
>> it), not all.
>>
>> Not ALL True statements are True based on the meaning of their words.
>>
>> Agaim, you are falling for the fallacy of proof by example.
>>
>> The Pythagorean Theorem isn't True by the meaning of the words, but
>> its truth comes out of the Truth makers of Plane Geometry and a series
>> of valid connections from them to the Theorem.
>>
>>>
>>> We really cannot take the elevator of a puppy to the fifteenth
>>> floor of this puppy and this is {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>
>>> The majority of people that were convinced there is no such thing
>>> as {true on the basis of meaning} on the basis that Quine utterly
>>> failed to understand how we know that bachelors are unmarried are
>>> simply wrong.
>>
>> I don't think many people think that there are no statements that are
>> true by the nature of the meaning of the words, just that the "meaning
>> of the words" can't be the only criteria.
>>
>
> I never restricted it this way (to the meaning of words)
THen you DO accept that Godel's G is a true statement by its meaning
since there does not exist any number g that satisfies the defined
Primitive Recursive Relationship?
And this can be established by the infinite sequence of steps of
checking every Natural Number against that relationship, which is the
classical meaning of Semantically true,
And thus is can not be a epistemological antinomy.
> I never even restricted on on the basis of the:
>
> *Principle of compositionality*
> In semantics, mathematical logic and related disciplines, the principle
> of compositionality is the principle that the meaning of a complex
> expression is determined by the meanings of its constituent expressions
> and the rules used to combine them.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_compositionality
>
> I have *always* meant the 100% perfectly totally complete
> meaning that also includes the full discourse context.
How does that show that the Pathagorean Theorem is true?
The question isn't determining the "Meaning of the Words" which is what
the full discourse context would provide, but the sequence of the
logical arguement that proves it, which is something which goes beyound
"meaning" of the words.
>
> Do you think that it is possible to:
> take the elevator of a puppy to the fifteenth floor of this puppy?
> or would the total meaning of the expression make that impossible?
Nope. WHich is a fallacy of proof by example.
Note, all your examples go to the most primiative form of logic, which
if that is all you have, can be complete because it will be finite.
>
> Maybe my example would have given Quine a clue about how we know
> that all bachelors are unmarried. He is the one that convinced
> most of the world that {true on the basis of meaning} is vacuous
> and he did this almost entirely on the basis that he could not
> understand exactly how we know that all bachelors are unmarried.
>
> {true on the basis of meaning} is only relations between finite
> strings thus excludes direct observations of things in the world.
>
> *Two Dogmas of Empiricism*
> https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
Since none of this relates to Formal logic or undecidability or
incompleteness, I will presume that you are just admitting that you have
no answers to the replys and are just working on Red Herring.
Note, Quine doesn't say that we can't show that all bachelors are
unmarried, but that bachelor and unmarried are not SYNONYMS replaceable
with each other, and that logic that is based on that is too imprecise,
and we need to better define the rules of logic when doing such things.
The key point here is that while the classical definition of a bachelor
is a never married man (though some uses of the words might include a
man that was married but now nolonger has a wife), the word "unmarried"
also has ranges of meaning from "never married" to "currently not
married" and thus the two words can't be considered truely equivalent words.
It seems, your problem is that you just don't understand the nuances of
the papers, and in your stupidity assume this means the other people are
just wrong, when the error is on YOUR part.
To re-iterate, every challenge I have put to you, asking you to defend
your position has been ignored, and I will treat that as your admission
that you have no response, and an admission that you accept that your
claim is invalid, and thus that you repeated making the disproven claims
are just proof of your being a liar and an idiot (for thinking people
will believe your lies).
>
>>>
>>> We must establish {true on the basis of meaning} as the ultimate
>>> foundation of correct reasoning before we can begin to point out
>>> how modern logic diverges from correct reasoning.
>>>
>>
>> Then your concept of "Correct Reasoning" can't handle fundamental true
>> statements like the Pythagorean Theorem, or even that 2 + 3 = 5, as
>> these are not true JUST by the meaning of the words.
>>
>
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-17 21:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-17 23:13 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 09:50 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 18:31 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 20:11 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 21:58 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 21:25 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 22:50 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 22:28 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 07:09 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 09:18 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 18:41 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 11:37 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-20 12:52 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 09:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 13:05 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 13:11 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-22 11:26 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-22 09:03 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-22 18:54 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 09:44 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-23 21:47 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 09:54 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 10:28 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 13:40 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 15:01 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 13:07 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 12:15 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 11:19 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 13:58 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 12:16 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 09:38 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 08:36 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 09:52 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 18:51 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 13:04 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 19:20 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 01:05 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-20 08:56 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 10:20 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-20 11:39 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 10:26 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 12:52 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 09:44 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-22 09:10 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 10:33 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 19:01 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 19:17 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 20:49 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 19:57 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 22:00 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 21:16 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 23:38 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 22:53 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 07:32 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 22:56 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 07:32 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 21:02 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 09:15 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:50 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 14:09 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 12:19 -0400
D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 12:05 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 19:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 20:26 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 20:43 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 22:18 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 22:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 23:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 23:07 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 00:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 00:34 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 07:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 09:32 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 13:09 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 12:51 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 14:10 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 13:17 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 14:40 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 13:52 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 15:09 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 14:48 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 17:24 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 16:36 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 17:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 17:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 18:19 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 17:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 18:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 17:56 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 19:09 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 18:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 19:44 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 19:21 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 20:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:13 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 09:29 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:26 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 18:16 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 10:40 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-30 11:52 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 10:36 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-30 18:46 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-01 12:43 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 10:45 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-02 12:55 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 09:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-03 11:54 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 06:38 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 17:57 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 22:20 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 10:56 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 08:46 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 12:11 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 09:06 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 14:39 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 09:48 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 15:34 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 10:47 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 10:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 12:57 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 17:14 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 12:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 13:52 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 11:52 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 11:31 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 13:15 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 13:46 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 16:40 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 16:18 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 17:43 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 17:08 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 18:36 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 18:01 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 19:32 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 18:51 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 20:07 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 19:20 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 20:44 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 19:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 21:05 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 20:30 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 22:49 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 22:17 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-05 12:36 +0200
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:23 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:00 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:30 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-05 15:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 11:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:43 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-05 17:03 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:27 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 11:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:46 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:28 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:49 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 13:32 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-05 16:57 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:23 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:37 +0200
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2024-05-05 13:11 -0600
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:41 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:21 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:54 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 13:33 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 15:47 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 15:34 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 16:09 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 18:57 -0400
your system clock is still off olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 19:38 -0500
Re: your system clock is still off Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 21:05 -0400
Re: your system clock is still off olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 22:27 -0500
Re: your system clock is still off Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:53 -0400
Re: your system clock is still off olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:06 -0500
Re: your system clock is still off Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: your system clock is still off Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 18:50 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 07:10 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 10:13 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:50 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 19:01 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 11:51 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-05-05 09:33 +0100
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-05 10:02 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:51 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:54 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-05 17:28 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:47 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 08:36 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-04 12:11 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 09:12 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 11:58 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-05 12:39 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:41 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 19:15 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 10:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:10 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 09:22 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 07:31 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 09:48 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 11:10 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 10:27 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 12:13 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 12:10 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 13:41 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 11:12 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 13:26 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 11:46 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:41 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 12:01 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:28 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 10:24 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 09:08 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:55 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 08:50 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 13:21 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 00:57 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 07:34 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 09:51 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 13:23 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 14:04 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 16:36 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 13:07 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 16:05 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 20:41 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 21:40 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 20:39 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 00:47 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 07:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 07:17 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 10:16 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 08:53 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 12:41 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 11:37 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 11:42 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 14:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 17:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 16:38 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 19:52 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 19:22 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 21:54 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 23:35 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-22 07:35 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 10:39 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-23 21:47 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 19:00 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 19:53 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 22:02 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 23:33 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 07:32 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 09:09 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 12:04 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 10:45 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 13:47 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:51 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:51 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 09:53 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 18:33 -0400
csiph-web