Tarski Undefinability Theorem proof’s Error

[PeteOlcott]

Axiom(x) → ~Provable(x) It like saying I have a cup of water therefore my cup is empty.

Even God can't help this level of idiocy.

If "I have a cup of water" is an axiom it follows that "I have a cup of water" is not provable.
It's called non-provable because it doesn't appears on the right-hand side of the therefore.

??? therefore I have a cup of water.

Making sure to ignore what I say is not an actual rebuttal
Semantic Necessity operator: ⊨□
"I have a cup of water" ⊨□ "I have a cup of water" // thus provable

[Skepdick]

Axiom(x) → ~Provable(x) It like saying I have a cup of water therefore my cup is empty.

Even God can't help this level of idiocy.

If "I have a cup of water" is an axiom it follows that "I have a cup of water" is not provable.
It's called non-provable because it doesn't appears on the right-hand side of the therefore.

??? therefore I have a cup of water.

Making sure to ignore what I say is not an actual rebuttal
Semantic Necessity operator: ⊨□
"I have a cup of water" ⊨□ "I have a cup of water" // thus provable

Yeah. Genius!

∀x x ⊨ x

That's equivalent to the principle of exlosion. Everything is entailed!

[PeteOlcott]

Even God can't help this level of idiocy.

If "I have a cup of water" is an axiom it follows that "I have a cup of water" is not provable.
It's called non-provable because it doesn't appears on the right-hand side of the therefore.

??? therefore I have a cup of water.

Making sure to ignore what I say is not an actual rebuttal
Semantic Necessity operator: ⊨□
"I have a cup of water" ⊨□ "I have a cup of water" // thus provable

Yeah. Genius!

∀x x ⊨ x

That's equivalent to the principle of exlosion. Everything is entailed!

That every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion.

[Skepdick]

That every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion.

Of course it is. Everything entails itself, therefore everything is provable.

Axiomatically: God exists ⊨□ God exists.
Axiomatically: God doesn't exist ⊨□ God doesn't exist
Axiomatically: 1+1=5 ⊨□ 1+1=5
Axiomatically: This sentence is a lie ⊨□ This sentence is a lie

Every one of the above is proven, therefore it's true.

[PeteOlcott]

That every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion.

Of course it is. Everything entails itself, therefore everything is provable.

Axiomatically: God exists ⊨□ God exists.
Axiomatically: God doesn't exist ⊨□ God doesn't exist
Axiomatically: 1+1=5 ⊨□ 1+1=5
Axiomatically: This sentence is a lie ⊨□ This sentence is a lie

Every one of the above is proven, therefore it's true.

Did you notice that 1+1=5 is not an axiom?
Every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion.
Every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion.
Every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion.

[Skepdick]

Did you notice that 1+1=5 is not an axiom?

Says who? Do you have a decision procedure for Axiom(x) or ~Axiom(x) ?

Every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion.
Every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion.
Every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion.

It is. Everything sentence proves itself true therefore any sentence is true.

[PeteOlcott]

Did you notice that 1+1=5 is not an axiom?

Says who? Do you have a decision procedure for Axiom(x) or ~Axiom(x) ?

Every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion.
Every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion.
Every axiom entails itself is not equivalent to the principle of explosion.

It is. Everything sentence proves itself true therefore any sentence is true.

Not every sentence is an axiom

[Skepdick]

Not every sentence is an axiom

So, is the sentence "Not every sentence is an axiom" an axiom or a non-axiom?

[PeteOlcott]

Not every sentence is an axiom

So, is the sentence "Not every sentence is an axiom" an axiom or a non-axiom?

Let me know when you want to quit playing head games until then I quit.
You must prove that you want an honest dialogue
until then I will quit talking to you

[Skepdick]

until then I quit.

We both know that's a lie.

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/search?q=olcott

[Skepdick]

You must prove that you want an honest dialogue

I want an honest dialogue ⊨□ I want an honest dialogue.

Q.E.D

[PeteOlcott]

You must prove that you want an honest dialogue

I want an honest dialogue ⊨□ I want an honest dialogue.

Q.E.D

OK, now prove that by changing your demeanor and making comments and questions that pertain to an honest dialogue.

[Skepdick]

OK, now prove that by changing your demeanor and making comments and questions that pertain to an honest dialogue.

I've literally shown you your own error. And I've wasted my time doing it in exchange for no reward whatsoever.

You don't think that's honest?

[PeteOlcott]

OK, now prove that by changing your demeanor and making comments and questions that pertain to an honest dialogue.

I've literally shown you your own error. And I've wasted my time doing it in exchange for no reward whatsoever.

You don't think that's honest?

Since there cannot possibly be any error (with the way that analytical truth really works) you have at best shown your lack of comprehension and at worst lied your ass off to play a mere trollish head game.

The choice of your username seems to indicate the latter.

being a dick
conducting oneself in an inappropriate manner to the annoyance of others.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... 20a%20Dick

[Skepdick]

Since there cannot possibly be any error (with the way that analytical truth really works) you have at best shown your lack of comprehension and at worst lied your ass off to play a mere trollish head game.

Does there ever come a point in your reasoning where you go "Oh, fuck! Yeah. I am an idiot!"?

It's really fucking tiresome having to interact with an egomaniac who thinks his intellectual "prowess" and pure, error-free reason is God's gift to humanity.

The choice of your username seems to indicate the latter.

being a dick
conducting oneself in an inappropriate manner to the annoyance of others.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... 20a%20Dick

My conduct has nothing to do with the fact that you are wrong, but it sure gives you a convenient excuse to change the subject without acknowledging your error.