Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: sci.logic Subject: Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 14:45:07 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <1ec5e64194f4e88998b8d462497e3a378e1d91fd@i2pn2.org> References: <02642e518edd3aa9152cd47e4e527f21ee53a0e8@i2pn2.org> <60c0214582c7f97e49ef6f8853bff95569774f97@i2pn2.org> <4d8c7b1c69915ebbe108d7f4e29cf6172eac7759@i2pn2.org> <43690773dba43c5d93d11635af0a26532e5be390@i2pn2.org> <6272b80d0aeaca324ac8624dce71945edeb59092@i2pn2.org> <2e642af254f6140ce8711da64f31d4fd8467d58b@i2pn2.org> <2d7efb21a7466aa56ed7be937da998852f6882af@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 18:45:07 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2897736"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Bytes: 13454 Lines: 257 On 8/17/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/17/2024 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 8/17/24 2:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/17/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 8/17/24 1:41 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 8/17/2024 12:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 8/17/24 1:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/17/24 12:51 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 11:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/24 12:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 11:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/24 11:47 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/24 10:45 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This abolishes the notion of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidability* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As with all math and logic we have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are true on the basis of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this same language. Unless expression >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x has a connection >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (through a sequence of true preserving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations) in system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> F to its semantic meanings expressed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language L of F >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x is simply untrue in F. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you clearly don't understand the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of "undecidability" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ZFC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did to conquer Russell's Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to do that, you need to start at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basics are totally reformulate logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine the notion of a set so that it was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no longer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Fraenkel. They created a new definition of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a set was, and then showed what that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implies, since by changing the definitions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the old work of set theory has to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown out, and then we see what can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> established. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of this is changing any more rules. All >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these are the effects of the change of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a set. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you could do as basic operations ON a set. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being equal, that ZFC is built on first-order >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a set can not be a member of itself, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we can count the members of a set. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This one is the key that conquered Russell's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If anything else changed it changed on the basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or was not required to defeat RP. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they needed to define the full set. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you problem is you just don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how formal logic works. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think at a higher level of abstraction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you don't, unless you mean by that not bothering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make sure the details work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't do fundamental logic in the abstract. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is just called fluff and bluster. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All that they did is just like I said they redefined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying that all they did is redefine a set. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the sort of thing YOU need to do to redefine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said that ZFC redefined the notion of a set to get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rid of RP. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You show the steps of how ZFC redefined a set as your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a LIE. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They developed a full formal system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They did nothing besides change the definition of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a set and the result of this was a new formal system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you consider all the papers they wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describing the effects of their definitions "nothing" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all and you know this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One change had many effects yet was still one change. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But would mean nothing without showing the affects of that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> change. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet again with your imprecise use of words. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========