Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory Subject: Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 11:09:45 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 126 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 18:09:45 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f6820c6f88a6ab7f47362bcc86c8cb3a"; logging-data="569875"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+OsP+eIyBRdgNifiozDboa" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:uXXptFyMUjbFHHWIPomSP+BceFc= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6286 On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/9/24 11:12 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/9/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/9/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/9/2024 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/9/24 3:08 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/9/24 2:40 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 2:13 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 10:36 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> *This has direct application to undecidable decision problems* >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic >>>>>>>>>>>>> answer is >>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever makes an expression of language true its >>>>>>>>>>>>> truthmaker. This >>>>>>>>>>>>> entails that if there is nothing in the universe that makes >>>>>>>>>>>>> expression X >>>>>>>>>>>>> true then X lacks a truthmaker and is untrue. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> X may be untrue because X is false. In that case ~X has a >>>>>>>>>>>>> truthmaker. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we have the means to unequivocally define truth-bearer. >>>>>>>>>>>>> X is a >>>>>>>>>>>>> truth-bearer iff (if and only if) X or ~X has a truthmaker. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been working in this same area as a non-academician >>>>>>>>>>>>> for a few >>>>>>>>>>>>> years. I have only focused on expressions of language that >>>>>>>>>>>>> are {true on >>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis of their meaning}. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now that truthmaker and truthbearer are fully anchored it is >>>>>>>>>>>> easy to see >>>>>>>>>>>> that self-contradictory expressions are simply not >>>>>>>>>>>> truthbearers. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> “This sentence is not true” can't be true because that would >>>>>>>>>>>> make it >>>>>>>>>>>> untrue and it can't be false because that would make it true. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Within the the definition of truthmaker specified above: >>>>>>>>>>>> “this sentence >>>>>>>>>>>> has no truthmaker” is simply not a truthbearer. It can't be >>>>>>>>>>>> true within >>>>>>>>>>>> the above specified definition of truthmaker because this >>>>>>>>>>>> would make it >>>>>>>>>>>> false. It can't be false because that makes >>>>>>>>>>>> it true. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Unless the system is inconsistent, in which case they can be. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Note, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then this >>>>>>>>>> does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in science. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope. Not for Formal system, which have a specific definition >>>>>>>>> of its truth-makers, unless you let your definition become >>>>>>>>> trivial for Formal logic where a "truth-makers" is what has >>>>>>>>> been defined to be the "truth-makers" for the system. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Formal systems are free to define their own truthmakers. >>>>>>>> When these definitions result in inconsistency they are >>>>>>>> proved to be incorrect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, you admit that your definition is just inconsistant, as it >>>>>>> says FOR ALL and then you admit it isn't FOR ALL >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And a formal system proven inconsistant isn't necessarily >>>>>>> incorrect, just inconsistent. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To the extent that they define inconsistency they >>>>>> are not truth-makers. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> YOU hae a TYPE ERROR in your statement. >>>>> >>>>> That just proves that YOUR logic is incorrect. >>>>> >>>>> How can a SYSTEM be a propsition? >>>>> >>>> >>>> *Stopping at your first big mistake* >>>> >>>> When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer >>>> is whatever makes an expression of language true its truthmaker. >>>> >>>> A cat in your living room is not a proposition yet makes the >>>> sentence: "there is a cat in my living room" true, thus its >>>> truthmaker. >>>> >>> >>> Which isn't a formal system. >>> >> >> A cat in your living room a truthmaker and is not >> a formal system. >> > > So, you agree your definiton doesn't work on formal systems? > I never agreed to anything like that. When we define truthmaker this self-evidently true way: When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer is whatever makes an expression of language true its truthmaker. This entails that if there is nothing in the universe that makes expression X true then X lacks a truthmaker and is untrue. Then it is self-evident that this the way that truth really works. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer