Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #333273 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-04-17 21:34 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-04-19 19:41 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 309 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
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 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-20 10:41 +0300
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-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-21 10:50 +0300
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-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-22 18:14 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-22 10:49 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-23 11:10 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 09:21 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-24 11:42 +0300
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-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-24 12:31 +0300
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-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-24 12:49 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 11:01 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-25 11:26 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 09:27 -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-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-27 11:18 +0300
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 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-28 12:34 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:41 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 12:09 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:22 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 18:13 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 10:26 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-30 15:04 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 11:08 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-01 12:01 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 10:11 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-02 11:19 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 08:22 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-03 11:31 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 07:55 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-04 11:41 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-26 11:42 +0300
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-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-20 10:54 +0300
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-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-21 10:57 +0300
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-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-22 12:35 +0300
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 --Tarski Proof-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-22 18:27 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-22 10:52 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-22 12:37 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-23 11:21 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 09:31 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-24 11:35 +0300
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)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-25 11:16 +0300
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: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 10:47 -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)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-26 11:32 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 08:54 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-27 11:24 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 08:39 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-28 11:36 +0300
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)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 12:15 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 12:17 +0300
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)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 18:11 +0300
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
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 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-28 11:40 +0300
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 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 12:11 +0300
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 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 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 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 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: 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 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 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> - 2024-05-04 11:48 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-25 11:11 +0300
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)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 12:54 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-26 12:16 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 11:21 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-27 11:41 +0300
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 --H(D,D)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-28 12:01 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:24 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 12:24 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:32 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 18:04 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 10:22 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 20:41 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-30 15:01 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 11:06 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-01 12:06 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 10:19 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 20:44 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 21:27 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 00:02 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:43 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 07:21 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-02 11:11 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 08:17 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-03 11:27 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 07:53 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-04 11:51 +0300
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
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-19 10:48 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 07:12 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 09:20 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 19:41 -0400
Page 1 of 16 [1] 2 3 … 16 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-17 21:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 |
| Message-ID | <uvq0sg$21m7a$1@dont-email.me> |
...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44) *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. 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 -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-17 23:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uvq359$1doq3$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333273 |
On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote: > ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar > undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44) > > *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. Nope. Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY. > > Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a > proposition in F because propositions must be true or false. But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING. Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F. You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually is, because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and don't even understand that. Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number that has a specific property. Until you understand that, your continued talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving your absoulute STUPIDITY. > > 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 > Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-18 09:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <uvrbvs$2acf7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333274 |
On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote: >> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar >> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44) >> >> *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. > > Nope. > > Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY. > >> >> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a >> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false. > > But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING. > > Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F. > > You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually is, > because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and don't even > understand that. > > Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number that has > a specific property. Until you understand that, your continued talking > about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving your absoulute STUPIDITY. > >> >> 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 >> > > Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are > arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar. > If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you. This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will hear nothing form me. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-18 18:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uvs70t$1h01f$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333278 |
On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote: > On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar >>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44) >>> >>> *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. >> >> Nope. >> >> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY. >> >>> >>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a >>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false. >> >> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING. >> >> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F. >> >> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually is, >> because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and don't even >> understand that. >> >> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number that >> has a specific property. Until you understand that, your continued >> talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving your >> absoulute STUPIDITY. >> >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are >> arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar. >> > > If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop > talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names > if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing > out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you. > > This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will > hear nothing form me. > I say you are WRONG, because you ARE. You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't. It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that satisfies a particular property, which will be a truth bearing statement (The number must either exist or it doesn't) THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR. That you repeat the error after being corrected, because apparently you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer to it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic system derived from F. The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, so it seems worthless to repeat them every time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-18 20:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <uvsgcl$2i80k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333280 |
On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar >>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44) >>>> >>>> *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. >>> >>> Nope. >>> >>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY. >>> >>>> >>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a >>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false. >>> >>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING. >>> >>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F. >>> >>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually is, >>> because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and don't >>> even understand that. >>> >>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number that >>> has a specific property. Until you understand that, your continued >>> talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving your >>> absoulute STUPIDITY. >>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are >>> arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar. >>> >> >> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop >> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names >> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing >> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you. >> >> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will >> hear nothing form me. >> > > I say you are WRONG, because you ARE. > > You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because it > is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't. > > It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that satisfies a > particular property, which will be a truth bearing statement (The number > must either exist or it doesn't) > > THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR. > *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* > That you repeat the error after being corrected, because apparently you > can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. > > You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer to it > by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its interpretation and > what can be proved from it in the meta-logic system derived from F. > > The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, so it > seems worthless to repeat them every time. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-18 21:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uvsj4v$1h01e$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333282 |
On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote: > On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a >>>>> similar >>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44) >>>>> >>>>> *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. >>>> >>>> Nope. >>>> >>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a >>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false. >>>> >>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING. >>>> >>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F. >>>> >>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually is, >>>> because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and don't >>>> even understand that. >>>> >>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number that >>>> has a specific property. Until you understand that, your continued >>>> talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving your >>>> absoulute STUPIDITY. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are >>>> arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar. >>>> >>> >>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop >>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names >>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing >>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you. >>> >>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will >>> hear nothing form me. >>> >> >> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE. >> >> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because it >> is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't. >> >> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that satisfies a >> particular property, which will be a truth bearing statement (The >> number must either exist or it doesn't) >> >> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR. >> > > *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* > *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* > *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* > *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* > *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* > *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* > *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* > *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* > *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* > *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* > *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* > *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* > *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* > *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but incompletenwss, which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read what you said above). INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that are true. Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with undecidability, in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative Recursive Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in finite number of operations). So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or doesn't know the difference in the topics). I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't match your subject, because I understand your general confusion on the topics. So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong word, which just shows your total ignorance about what you are talking about. Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put together a coherent argument? You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about Godel's argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you have no idea what he said, but try to put your own false words into his mouth, > >> That you repeat the error after being corrected, because apparently >> you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. >> >> You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer to >> it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its >> interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic system >> derived from F. >> >> The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, so >> it seems worthless to repeat them every time. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-18 21:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <uvsknc$2mq5c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333283 |
On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a >>>>>> similar >>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44) >>>>>> >>>>>> *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. >>>>> >>>>> Nope. >>>>> >>>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a >>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false. >>>>> >>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING. >>>>> >>>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F. >>>>> >>>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually is, >>>>> because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and don't >>>>> even understand that. >>>>> >>>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number that >>>>> has a specific property. Until you understand that, your continued >>>>> talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving your >>>>> absoulute STUPIDITY. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are >>>>> arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop >>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names >>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing >>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you. >>>> >>>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will >>>> hear nothing form me. >>>> >>> >>> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE. >>> >>> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because >>> it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't. >>> >>> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that satisfies >>> a particular property, which will be a truth bearing statement (The >>> number must either exist or it doesn't) >>> >>> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR. >>> >> >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* > > Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but incompletenwss, > which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read what you said above). > > INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that > are true. > > Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with > undecidability, *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf > in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative > Recursive Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly > computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in > finite number of operations). > > So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or doesn't > know the difference in the topics). > > I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't match > your subject, because I understand your general confusion on the topics. > > So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong word, > which just shows your total ignorance about what you are talking about. > > Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put together a > coherent argument? > > You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to > deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about Godel's > argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you have no idea > what he said, but try to put your own false words into his mouth, > > >> >>> That you repeat the error after being corrected, because apparently >>> you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. >>> >>> You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer to >>> it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its >>> interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic >>> system derived from F. >>> >>> The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, so >>> it seems worthless to repeat them every time. >> > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-18 22:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uvsm5p$1h01f$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333284 |
On 4/18/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: > On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a >>>>>>> similar >>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *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. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a >>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false. >>>>>> >>>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING. >>>>>> >>>>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F. >>>>>> >>>>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually >>>>>> is, because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and >>>>>> don't even understand that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number >>>>>> that has a specific property. Until you understand that, your >>>>>> continued talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving >>>>>> your absoulute STUPIDITY. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are >>>>>> arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop >>>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names >>>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing >>>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you. >>>>> >>>>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will >>>>> hear nothing form me. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE. >>>> >>>> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because >>>> it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't. >>>> >>>> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that satisfies >>>> a particular property, which will be a truth bearing statement (The >>>> number must either exist or it doesn't) >>>> >>>> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR. >>>> >>> >>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >> >> Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but incompletenwss, >> which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read what you said >> above). >> >> INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that >> are true. >> >> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with undecidability, > > *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* > *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* > *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* > *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* > > https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf WHERE does he say that GODEL INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM directly says anything about DECIDABILITY? Yes, there is a link between completeness and decidability, as an incomplete system has an undecidable problem, that of the proof generator for that statement, and a system with an undeciable problem is incomplete, as if we could prove the correct answer, then a theorem prover could compute the answer, but they are different things. And your complaint just shows you don't understand that. > >> in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative Recursive >> Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly >> computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in >> finite number of operations). >> >> So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or doesn't >> know the difference in the topics). >> >> I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't match >> your subject, because I understand your general confusion on the topics. >> >> So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong word, >> which just shows your total ignorance about what you are talking about. >> >> Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put together a >> coherent argument? >> >> You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to >> deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about Godel's >> argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you have no >> idea what he said, but try to put your own false words into his mouth, >> >> >>> >>>> That you repeat the error after being corrected, because apparently >>>> you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. >>>> >>>> You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer >>>> to it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its >>>> interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic >>>> system derived from F. >>>> >>>> The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, so >>>> it seems worthless to repeat them every time. >>> >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-18 22:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <uvsode$2ne5d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333285 |
On 4/18/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 4/18/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a >>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly >>>>>>>> be a >>>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just >>>>>>> LYING. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven >>>>>>> in F. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually >>>>>>> is, because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and >>>>>>> don't even understand that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number >>>>>>> that has a specific property. Until you understand that, your >>>>>>> continued talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, >>>>>>> proving your absoulute STUPIDITY. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are >>>>>>> arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop >>>>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names >>>>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing >>>>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will >>>>>> hear nothing form me. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE. >>>>> >>>>> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because >>>>> it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't. >>>>> >>>>> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that >>>>> satisfies a particular property, which will be a truth bearing >>>>> statement (The number must either exist or it doesn't) >>>>> >>>>> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>> >>> Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but >>> incompletenwss, which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read >>> what you said above). >>> >>> INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements >>> that are true. >>> >>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with >>> undecidability, >> >> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >> >> https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf > > WHERE does he say that GODEL INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM directly says > anything about DECIDABILITY? > > Yes, there is a link between completeness and decidability, as an > incomplete system has an undecidable problem, that of the proof *In other words you are totally retracting the line that I replied to* >>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with >>> undecidability, That is good because I totally agree with the preceding line that you said. > generator for that statement, and a system with an undeciable problem is > incomplete, as if we could prove the correct answer, then a theorem > prover could compute the answer, but they are different things. > > And your complaint just shows you don't understand that. > >> >>> in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative Recursive >>> Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly >>> computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in >>> finite number of operations). >>> >>> So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or >>> doesn't know the difference in the topics). >>> >>> I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't match >>> your subject, because I understand your general confusion on the topics. >>> >>> So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong word, >>> which just shows your total ignorance about what you are talking about. >>> >>> Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put together a >>> coherent argument? >>> >>> You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to >>> deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about >>> Godel's argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you >>> have no idea what he said, but try to put your own false words into >>> his mouth, >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> That you repeat the error after being corrected, because apparently >>>>> you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. >>>>> >>>>> You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer >>>>> to it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its >>>>> interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic >>>>> system derived from F. >>>>> >>>>> The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, >>>>> so it seems worthless to repeat them every time. >>>> >>> >> > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-19 07:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uvtje3$1iq0b$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333286 |
On 4/18/24 11:28 PM, olcott wrote: > On 4/18/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 4/18/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a >>>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly >>>>>>>>> be a >>>>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just >>>>>>>> LYING. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven >>>>>>>> in F. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually >>>>>>>> is, because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and >>>>>>>> don't even understand that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number >>>>>>>> that has a specific property. Until you understand that, your >>>>>>>> continued talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, >>>>>>>> proving your absoulute STUPIDITY. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you >>>>>>>> are arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will >>>>>>> stop >>>>>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me >>>>>>> names >>>>>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing >>>>>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will >>>>>>> hear nothing form me. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE. >>>>>> >>>>>> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable >>>>>> because it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that >>>>>> satisfies a particular property, which will be a truth bearing >>>>>> statement (The number must either exist or it doesn't) >>>>>> >>>>>> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>> >>>> Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but >>>> incompletenwss, which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read >>>> what you said above). >>>> >>>> INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements >>>> that are true. >>>> >>>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with >>>> undecidability, >>> >>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >>> >>> https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf >> >> WHERE does he say that GODEL INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM directly says >> anything about DECIDABILITY? >> >> Yes, there is a link between completeness and decidability, as an >> incomplete system has an undecidable problem, that of the proof > > *In other words you are totally retracting the line that I replied to* > >>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with > >>> undecidability, > > That is good because I totally agree with the preceding line that you said. No, because Godel was NOT talking about "undecidability" but "Incompleteness". Even though there is a tie between the two topics, they are separate topics. This just shows that your native lanuguage is just LIES, as that is all you can focus on. Note, you have done NOTHING to refute all the errors I pointed out about your statements of Godel's proof, so you initial statement in the paraphrase is still shown to be a LIE, and your whole proof just incorrect and unsound, as you are by your basic nature. Your concept of "Correct Reasoning" is NOT "Correct", or even really based on "Reasoning", because you just don't understand either concept. > >> generator for that statement, and a system with an undeciable problem >> is incomplete, as if we could prove the correct answer, then a theorem >> prover could compute the answer, but they are different things. >> >> And your complaint just shows you don't understand that. >> >>> >>>> in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative Recursive >>>> Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly >>>> computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in >>>> finite number of operations). >>>> >>>> So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or >>>> doesn't know the difference in the topics). >>>> >>>> I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't match >>>> your subject, because I understand your general confusion on the >>>> topics. >>>> >>>> So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong >>>> word, which just shows your total ignorance about what you are >>>> talking about. >>>> >>>> Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put together >>>> a coherent argument? >>>> >>>> You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to >>>> deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about >>>> Godel's argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you >>>> have no idea what he said, but try to put your own false words into >>>> his mouth, >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> That you repeat the error after being corrected, because >>>>>> apparently you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a >>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. >>>>>> >>>>>> You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer >>>>>> to it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its >>>>>> interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic >>>>>> system derived from F. >>>>>> >>>>>> The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, >>>>>> so it seems worthless to repeat them every time. >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-19 09:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <uvtuep$31kt3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333288 |
On 4/19/2024 6:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 4/18/24 11:28 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 4/18/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 4/18/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for >>>>>>>>>> a similar >>>>>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot >>>>>>>>>> possibly be a >>>>>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just >>>>>>>>> LYING. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven >>>>>>>>> in F. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually >>>>>>>>> is, because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and >>>>>>>>> don't even understand that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number >>>>>>>>> that has a specific property. Until you understand that, your >>>>>>>>> continued talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, >>>>>>>>> proving your absoulute STUPIDITY. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you >>>>>>>>> are arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will >>>>>>>> stop >>>>>>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me >>>>>>>> names >>>>>>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without >>>>>>>> pointing >>>>>>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will >>>>>>>> hear nothing form me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable >>>>>>> because it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that >>>>>>> satisfies a particular property, which will be a truth bearing >>>>>>> statement (The number must either exist or it doesn't) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>> >>>>> Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but >>>>> incompletenwss, which is what the WORDS you used talked about. >>>>> (Read what you said above). >>>>> >>>>> INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements >>>>> that are true. >>>>> >>>>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with >>>>> undecidability, >>>> >>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >>>> >>>> https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf >>> >>> WHERE does he say that GODEL INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM directly says >>> anything about DECIDABILITY? >>> >>> Yes, there is a link between completeness and decidability, as an >>> incomplete system has an undecidable problem, that of the proof >> >> *In other words you are totally retracting the line that I replied to* >> >>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with >> >>> undecidability, >> >> That is good because I totally agree with the preceding line that you >> said. > > No, because Godel was NOT talking about "undecidability" but > "Incompleteness". > > Even though there is a tie between the two topics, they are separate > topics. > Not according to this source Undecidability The non-existence of an algorithm or the impossibility of proving or disproving a statement within a formal system. https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Undecidability#:~:text=The%20non%2Dexistence%20of%20an,statement%20within%20a%20formal%20system. > This just shows that your native lanuguage is just LIES, as that is all > you can focus on. > > Note, you have done NOTHING to refute all the errors I pointed out about > your statements of Godel's proof, so you initial statement in the > paraphrase is still shown to be a LIE, and your whole proof just > incorrect and unsound, as you are by your basic nature. > > Your concept of "Correct Reasoning" is NOT "Correct", or even really > based on "Reasoning", because you just don't understand either concept. > >> >>> generator for that statement, and a system with an undeciable problem >>> is incomplete, as if we could prove the correct answer, then a >>> theorem prover could compute the answer, but they are different things. >>> >>> And your complaint just shows you don't understand that. >>> >>>> >>>>> in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative Recursive >>>>> Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly >>>>> computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in >>>>> finite number of operations). >>>>> >>>>> So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or >>>>> doesn't know the difference in the topics). >>>>> >>>>> I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't >>>>> match your subject, because I understand your general confusion on >>>>> the topics. >>>>> >>>>> So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong >>>>> word, which just shows your total ignorance about what you are >>>>> talking about. >>>>> >>>>> Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put together >>>>> a coherent argument? >>>>> >>>>> You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to >>>>> deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about >>>>> Godel's argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you >>>>> have no idea what he said, but try to put your own false words into >>>>> his mouth, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> That you repeat the error after being corrected, because >>>>>>> apparently you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a >>>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to >>>>>>> refer to it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its >>>>>>> interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic >>>>>>> system derived from F. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, >>>>>>> so it seems worthless to repeat them every time. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-19 18:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uvuruv$1kece$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333290 |
On 4/19/24 10:18 AM, olcott wrote: > On 4/19/2024 6:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 4/18/24 11:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 4/18/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 4/18/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for >>>>>>>>>>> a similar >>>>>>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot >>>>>>>>>>> possibly be a >>>>>>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just >>>>>>>>>> LYING. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be >>>>>>>>>> proven in F. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G >>>>>>>>>> actually is, because all you look at are the "clift notes" >>>>>>>>>> versions, and don't even understand that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number >>>>>>>>>> that has a specific property. Until you understand that, your >>>>>>>>>> continued talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, >>>>>>>>>> proving your absoulute STUPIDITY. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you >>>>>>>>>> are arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I >>>>>>>>> will stop >>>>>>>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me >>>>>>>>> names >>>>>>>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without >>>>>>>>> pointing >>>>>>>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will >>>>>>>>> hear nothing form me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable >>>>>>>> because it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that >>>>>>>> satisfies a particular property, which will be a truth bearing >>>>>>>> statement (The number must either exist or it doesn't) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it* >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but >>>>>> incompletenwss, which is what the WORDS you used talked about. >>>>>> (Read what you said above). >>>>>> >>>>>> INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements >>>>>> that are true. >>>>>> >>>>>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with >>>>>> undecidability, >>>>> >>>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >>>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >>>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >>>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >>>>> >>>>> https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf >>>> >>>> WHERE does he say that GODEL INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM directly says >>>> anything about DECIDABILITY? >>>> >>>> Yes, there is a link between completeness and decidability, as an >>>> incomplete system has an undecidable problem, that of the proof >>> >>> *In other words you are totally retracting the line that I replied to* >>> >>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with >>> >>> undecidability, >>> >>> That is good because I totally agree with the preceding line that you >>> said. >> >> No, because Godel was NOT talking about "undecidability" but >> "Incompleteness". >> >> Even though there is a tie between the two topics, they are separate >> topics. >> > > Not according to this source > > Undecidability > The non-existence of an algorithm or the impossibility of proving or > disproving a statement within a formal system. > > https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Undecidability#:~:text=The%20non%2Dexistence%20of%20an,statement%20within%20a%20formal%20system. And that talks about "undecidability" being an attribute of a SPECIFIC statement, while incompleteness is an attribute of the WHOLE SYSTEM. The use of "Decidability" as to the provablility of the statement is, as I remember, a more recent usage, since the theory relating provability and programs has been shown (and the walls between varios fields has crumbled). We still go back to your LIE that Godel is claiming that F is Incomplete because of his showing a statement that MUST be True, and also Unprovable is actually a statement that just isn't a truth bearer. THAT is a LIE, because his statement, IS a statement that MUST be a Truth Bearer (or Mathematics is fundamentally broken) as it relates to the existance or non-existance of a Number that matches a specific criteria, which must either exist or not. > >> This just shows that your native lanuguage is just LIES, as that is >> all you can focus on. >> >> Note, you have done NOTHING to refute all the errors I pointed out >> about your statements of Godel's proof, so you initial statement in >> the paraphrase is still shown to be a LIE, and your whole proof just >> incorrect and unsound, as you are by your basic nature. >> >> Your concept of "Correct Reasoning" is NOT "Correct", or even really >> based on "Reasoning", because you just don't understand either concept. >> >>> >>>> generator for that statement, and a system with an undeciable >>>> problem is incomplete, as if we could prove the correct answer, then >>>> a theorem prover could compute the answer, but they are different >>>> things. >>>> >>>> And your complaint just shows you don't understand that. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative Recursive >>>>>> Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly >>>>>> computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in >>>>>> finite number of operations). >>>>>> >>>>>> So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or >>>>>> doesn't know the difference in the topics). >>>>>> >>>>>> I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't >>>>>> match your subject, because I understand your general confusion on >>>>>> the topics. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong >>>>>> word, which just shows your total ignorance about what you are >>>>>> talking about. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put >>>>>> together a coherent argument? >>>>>> >>>>>> You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to >>>>>> deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about >>>>>> Godel's argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you >>>>>> have no idea what he said, but try to put your own false words >>>>>> into his mouth, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That you repeat the error after being corrected, because >>>>>>>> apparently you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a >>>>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to >>>>>>>> refer to it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about >>>>>>>> its interpretation and what can be proved from it in the >>>>>>>> meta-logic system derived from F. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE >>>>>>>> them, so it seems worthless to repeat them every time. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-20 10:41 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <uvvrj6$3i152$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333284 |
On 2024-04-19 02:25:48 +0000, olcott said: > On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with undecidability, > > *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* > > https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf > On questions whether Gödel said something or not the sumpreme authority is not Mendelson but Gödel. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-20 11:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- |
| Message-ID | <v00r07$3oqra$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333303 |
On 4/20/2024 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-04-19 02:25:48 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > >>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with >>> undecidability, >> >> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >> >> https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf > > On questions whether Gödel said something or not the sumpreme authority > is not Mendelson but Gödel. > When some authors affirm that undecidability and incompleteness are the exact same thing then whenever Gödel uses the term incompleteness then he is also referring to the term undecidability. It is common knowledge the undecidability derives incompleteness or undecidability is incompleteness. I already posted a bunch of links that show this. On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that > are true. Here is where Mendelson agrees with that: An undecidable sentence of a theory K is a closed wf ℬ of K such that neither ℬ nor ¬ℬ is a theorem of K, that is, such that not-⊢K B and not-⊢K ¬B. On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that > are true. *Here is where Mendelson agrees with that* An undecidable sentence of a theory K is a closed wf ℬ of K such that neither ℬ nor ¬ℬ is a theorem of K, that is, such that not-⊢K ℬ and not-⊢K ¬ℬ. (Mendelson: 2015:208) -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-20 12:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- |
| Message-ID | <v00rsk$1m94d$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333308 |
On 4/20/24 12:37 PM, olcott wrote: > On 4/20/2024 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-04-19 02:25:48 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >>>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with >>>> undecidability, >>> >>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >>> >>> https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf >> >> On questions whether Gödel said something or not the sumpreme authority >> is not Mendelson but Gödel. >> > > When some authors affirm that undecidability and incompleteness > are the exact same thing then whenever Gödel uses the term > incompleteness then he is also referring to the term undecidability. Nope. And the key is that they are NOT "the exact same thing" but are interrelated and one proves the other. > > It is common knowledge the undecidability derives incompleteness > or undecidability is incompleteness. I already posted a bunch of > links that show this. Right, the theories intertwine and either can prove the other. That doesn't make them "the same thing". > > On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that > > are true. > > Here is where Mendelson agrees with that: > > An undecidable sentence of a theory K is a closed wf ℬ of K such that > neither ℬ nor ¬ℬ is a theorem of K, that is, such that not-⊢K B and > not-⊢K ¬B. > > On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that > > are true. > > *Here is where Mendelson agrees with that* > > An undecidable sentence of a theory K is a closed wf ℬ of K such that > neither ℬ nor ¬ℬ is a theorem of K, that is, such that not-⊢K ℬ and > not-⊢K ¬ℬ. (Mendelson: 2015:208) > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-21 10:50 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- |
| Message-ID | <v02ggt$6org$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333308 |
On 2024-04-20 16:37:27 +0000, olcott said: > On 4/20/2024 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-04-19 02:25:48 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >>>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with undecidability, >>> >>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >>> >>> https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf >>> >> >> On questions whether Gödel said something or not the sumpreme authority >> is not Mendelson but Gödel. >> > > When some authors affirm that undecidability and incompleteness > are the exact same thing then whenever Gödel uses the term > incompleteness then he is also referring to the term undecidability. That does not follow. Besides, a reference to the term "undecidability" is not a reference to the concept 'undecidability'. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-21 09:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- |
| Message-ID | <v03866$bitp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333316 |
On 4/21/2024 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-04-20 16:37:27 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 4/20/2024 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-04-19 02:25:48 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> >>>>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with >>>>> undecidability, >>>> >>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >>>> >>>> https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf >>> >>> On questions whether Gödel said something or not the sumpreme authority >>> is not Mendelson but Gödel. >>> >> >> When some authors affirm that undecidability and incompleteness >> are the exact same thing then whenever Gödel uses the term >> incompleteness then he is also referring to the term undecidability. > > That does not follow. Besides, a reference to the term "undecidability" > is not a reference to the concept 'undecidability'. > In other words you deny the identity principle thus X=X is false. An undecidable sentence of a theory K is a closed wf ℬ of K such that neither ℬ nor ¬ℬ is a theorem of K, that is, such that not-⊢K ℬ and not-⊢K ¬ℬ. (Mendelson: 2015:208) Incomplete(F) ≡ ∃x ∈ L ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)) -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-21 13:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- |
| Message-ID | <v03h0i$1q6tg$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333320 |
On 4/21/24 10:34 AM, olcott wrote: > On 4/21/2024 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-04-20 16:37:27 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 4/20/2024 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-04-19 02:25:48 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with >>>>>> undecidability, >>>>> >>>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >>>>> >>>>> https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf >>>> >>>> On questions whether Gödel said something or not the sumpreme authority >>>> is not Mendelson but Gödel. >>>> >>> >>> When some authors affirm that undecidability and incompleteness >>> are the exact same thing then whenever Gödel uses the term >>> incompleteness then he is also referring to the term undecidability. >> >> That does not follow. Besides, a reference to the term "undecidability" >> is not a reference to the concept 'undecidability'. >> > > In other words you deny the identity principle thus X=X is false. > > An undecidable sentence of a theory K is a closed wf ℬ of K such that > neither ℬ nor ¬ℬ is a theorem of K, that is, such that not-⊢K ℬ and > not-⊢K ¬ℬ. (Mendelson: 2015:208) > > Incomplete(F) ≡ ∃x ∈ L ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)) > Except incompleteness and undecidablity are attributes of different sorts of things. Yes, they are related, as Incompleteness of a Theory K, is a statement that in K there exists a theory that is accepted as a valid statement in K (and thus, for well defined Theory K that statement has a truth value) but that statement is not provable or refutable in the Theory K, which in the later terminology says that statement is undecidable. Note the different, The SYSTEM (K) is incomplete, but it is the STATEMENT that is undecidable. Godel focues on the SYSTEM, and shows that he can construct the unprovable but true statement. He doesn't focus on the statement itself, as no one is particularlly interested in that particular statement, so it being unprovable, by itself, doesn't mean much, except that, by existing, he shows that the full system must be incomplete, and thus there may well exist MANY such statements that are true but unprovable. THAT is an important fact. Note, this is different then the Halting Problem, where even if Turing Computation was shown to be "incomplete" in that there existed some mappings that were not computable, being able to compute the Halting Mapping would have extreme value, so the focus isn't on the "system" as a whole, but that one particular problem, the computing of the Halting Function given a description of the machine. Thus, "Uncomputable" and "Incompleteness" while highly related and intertwined are NOT "the same". Your confusing the two just shows your fundamental lack of understanding of what you are talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-21 13:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- |
| Message-ID | <v03hd0$1q6th$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333320 |
On 4/21/24 10:34 AM, olcott wrote: > On 4/21/2024 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >> That does not follow. Besides, a reference to the term "undecidability" >> is not a reference to the concept 'undecidability'. >> > > In other words you deny the identity principle thus X=X is false. > In other words, you fall for the error of the Treachery of Images. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images The Word is not the Concept.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-22 11:26 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- |
| Message-ID | <v056us$rmqi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333320 |
On 2024-04-21 14:34:44 +0000, olcott said: > On 4/21/2024 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-04-20 16:37:27 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 4/20/2024 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-04-19 02:25:48 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with undecidability, >>>>> >>>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees* >>>>> >>>>> https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf >>>>> >>>> >>>> On questions whether Gödel said something or not the sumpreme authority >>>> is not Mendelson but Gödel. >>>> >>> >>> When some authors affirm that undecidability and incompleteness >>> are the exact same thing then whenever Gödel uses the term >>> incompleteness then he is also referring to the term undecidability. >> >> That does not follow. Besides, a reference to the term "undecidability" >> is not a reference to the concept 'undecidability'. >> > > In other words you deny the identity principle thus X=X is false. It is not a good idea to lie where the truth can be seen. > An undecidable sentence of a theory K is a closed wf ℬ of K such that > neither ℬ nor ¬ℬ is a theorem of K, that is, such that not-⊢K ℬ and > not-⊢K ¬ℬ. (Mendelson: 2015:208) So that is what "undecideble" means in Mendelson: 2015. Elsewhere it may mean something else. > Incomplete(F) ≡ ∃x ∈ L ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)) So not the same. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 16 [1] 2 3 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web