
Re: Matheology S 224
Posted:
Apr 17, 2013 12:50 AM


On 16/04/2013 9:51 PM, fom wrote: > On 4/16/2013 10:31 PM, Nam Nguyen wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > > > >> the _meta phrase_ "is proven" can not be expressed by a FOL language: >> "is proven" pertains to a meta truth, which in turns can't be equated >> to a language expression: truth and semantics aren't the same. > > > In case the statements above cause you difficulties.
I don't think it does me, in the context of defining truth as part of an encoded finite string. This kind of truth isn't of different kind from the truth of finite proof of formal system. (Different kinds of rules of "inference" of course, nonetheless _finite_ is the keyword). > > Not that you are committed to anything in these links. > > It is simply evidence that your statement is not > without foundation. > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthaxiomatic/ > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logicprovability/ > > > The first paragraph in this link expresses criticism > of Tarski's theory of truth (semantic conception) > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/#CorWitFac
These links are somewhat lengthy and I have to read them before I could see any relevance to my Def1 case. But you certainly could let it be known, if you see anything there related to my Def1.
  There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.
NYOGEN SENZAKI 

