Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: sci.logic Subject: Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable --- truth-bearer Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 13:49:05 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 126 Message-ID: References: <4d8c7b1c69915ebbe108d7f4e29cf6172eac7759@i2pn2.org> <43690773dba43c5d93d11635af0a26532e5be390@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2024 12:49:06 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="347a09bea0f74aba6b28adcca457a6e2"; logging-data="3489262"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19HOglmvQ4mIqNMlEVf0LB9" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:Bp7kUNf93Nu9USlONTtjEBnLotw= Bytes: 7185 On 2024-09-02 12:44:57 +0000, olcott said: > On 9/2/2024 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-09-01 13:41:57 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 9/1/2024 7:30 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-08-31 12:18:20 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 8/31/2024 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-08-30 14:45:32 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/30/2024 8:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-08-29 13:36:00 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 8/29/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-28 12:14:47 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/28/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-24 03:26:39 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/23/2024 3:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-22 13:23:39 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/22/2024 7:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-21 12:47:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Formal systems kind of sort of has some vague idea of what True >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means. Tarski "proved" that there is no True(L,x) that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistently defined. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem#General_form >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The defined predicate True(L,x) fixed that* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 then x is simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> untrue in F. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever there is no sequence of truth preserving from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x or ~x to its meaning in L of F then x has no truth-maker >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in F and x not a truth-bearer in F. We never get to x is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable in F. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski proved that True is undefineable in certain formal systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your definition is not expressible in F, at least not as a definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like ZFC redefined the foundation of all sets I redefine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the foundation of all formal systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot redefine the foundation of all formal systems. Every formal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> system has the foundation it has and that cannot be changed. Formal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems are eternal and immutable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then According to your reasoning ZFC is wrong because >>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not allowed to redefine the foundation of set >>>>>>>>>>>>> theory. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It did not redefine anything. It is just another theory. It is called >>>>>>>>>>>> a set theory because its terms have many similarities to Cnator's sets. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It the correct set theory. Naive set theory >>>>>>>>>>> is tossed out on its ass for being WRONG. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is no basis to say that ZF is more or less correct than ZFC. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A set containing itself has always been incoherent in its >>>>>>>>> isomorphism to the concrete instance of a can of soup so >>>>>>>>> totally containing itself that it has no outside surface. >>>>>>>>> The above words are my own unique creation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is no need for an isomorphism between a set an a can of soup. >>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently incoherent in Quine's atom. Some set >>>>>>>> theories allow it, some don't. Cantor's theory does not say either >>>>>>>> way. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quine atoms (named after Willard Van Orman Quine) are sets that only >>>>>>> contain themselves, that is, sets that satisfy the formula x = {x}. >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement#Quine_atoms >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wrongo. This is exactly isomorphic to the incoherent notion of a >>>>>>> can of soup so totally containing itself that it has no outside >>>>>>> boundary. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I already said, that isomorphism is not needed. It is not useful. >>>>> >>>>> It proves incoherence at a deeper level. >>>> >>>> No, it does not. If you want to get an incoherence proven you need >>>> to prove it yourself. >>>> >>> >>> When you try to imagine a can of soup that soup totally contains >>> itself that it has no outside boundary you can see that this is >>> impossible because it is incoherent. >>> >>> It requires simultaneous mutually exclusive properties. >>> (a) It must have an outside surface because all physical >>> things have an outside surface. >> >> Perhaps physical things in some sense have an outside surface but >> that surface is not a part of the thing. We get the imression of >> a surface because the resolution of our eyes and other senses is >> too coarse to observe the small details of physical things. >> > > No it has an actual surface. When we pick up a ball > we touch its surface. If is had no outer surface we > could not pick up a ball. > >>> (b) It must not have an outside surface otherwise it is >>> not totally containing itself. >> >> It hasn't. >> > > If it has no outside surface then it does not physically exist In that case nothing physically exists. Every outside surface is merely an illusion. -- Mikko