Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 09:23:12 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 59 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 16:23:13 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="65be3053bb2d9b452c13d5ddc3153d90"; logging-data="3682461"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18xDdYUT7evLf/OpXJlh+En" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Z3WH0YD4duN/E2aCpmKlrQ8GtQY= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4092 On 6/15/2024 8:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 9:35 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/14/24 11:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/14/2024 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> But if you consider it a thing, that means that your logic system >>>>> FAILS by the same problem that killed Naive Set Theory, and in >>>>> fact, can shpw that ANYTHING is true. >>>>> >>>> >>>> bzzzTT WRONG ANSWER. Prove there is a centillion ton rainbow colored >>>> elephant in my living room right now. >>> >>> Since you just defined that your sources of Truth Makers include >>> EVERY universe that possible exists, then, BY DEFINITION, there >>> exists a universe where that is true. >>> >> >> iff (if and only if) expression of language X is true then some >> physically existing or conception thing makes X true. > > Which forces you into cycles, as either you have cycles, or you have a > set of "first truths" that are just true of themselves with nothing to > make them true. > > A directed graph (from truth sources to true statements) either has > cycles or roots, or is just infinite in size. > No you are wrong about this. The first thing that I discovered about this at least twenty years ago is that it is always an acyclic graph. When you try to come up with a concrete counter-example I will point out your specific mistake. The definition of the meaning of a term is the truthmaker for this term. The terms that this definition is composed of have their own definitions. This is recursively quite deep yet zero actual cycles. >> >> There are some published papers by "leading experts" in the >> field that make that same stupid mistake. >> >> > > But you clearly don't understand the problem with your statement, where > you are making a similar stupid mistake. > I have given this thirty years. You have given this a few minutes. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer