Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 13:28:17 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0f3e40caf51b61ebb05c4ec2ae44042bff632017@i2pn2.org>
References: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.org> <v6aeup$3lj41$1@dont-email.me>
 <b47ba0b985bb7a89548bd47c0f86d8693241f892@i2pn2.org>
 <v6c0lk$3skuk$3@dont-email.me>
 <e474b5f0ed67e56f6da43e7c0deb62c76342933a@i2pn2.org>
 <v6c2td$3skuk$4@dont-email.me>
 <51aecdca646d067438e9cd44b11cb8bf9be933f2@i2pn2.org>
 <v6c69s$3u2mj$2@dont-email.me>
 <ffea314eb0c48ef1c7c52e41bbe5e596252363c9@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cajn$3uu9o$1@dont-email.me>
 <e25eac30415eb75101e6e8af05c3a40d6ea8dbda@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cf9d$3viun$3@dont-email.me>
 <f22abb5f17f657bd1122de3c6339beadf4fb3e8f@i2pn2.org>
 <v6ch6a$13k$2@dont-email.me>
 <4ce79acf7c53160136f77603265cc1e5a5d3e34e@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cpnc$1b3m$2@dont-email.me>
 <9e59212316a9b258e95a1de7f5cca46fee37861e@i2pn2.org>
 <v6csla$1otr$2@dont-email.me>
 <3f12eb90be522441c8b95d17d25767fcaf72ed2d@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cvqs$5vir$2@dont-email.me>
 <efced1648cf7ddc1c257d7c4369add3b391dd005@i2pn2.org>
 <v6d2r0$6cgn$2@dont-email.me>
 <931fe5b1e73d204bf20a268dd025489e3040371d@i2pn2.org>
 <v6e5ho$bbcb$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 17:28:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2480388"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v6e5ho$bbcb$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8061
Lines: 173

On 7/7/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/7/2024 6:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/6/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/6/24 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/6/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if x is defined in L as ~True(L, x)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what value does True(L, x) have?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> then True(L,x) evaluates to false ultimately meaning
>>>>> that x is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> But doesn't ~false evaluate to True?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. ~false evaluates to true or incorrect.
>>
>> So, "incorrect" is an ACTUAL logic state, not just "sort of" and ~~P 
>> doesn't necessarily have the same value as P.
>>
> 
> It is something like tri-valued logic.

It needs to either BE tri-valued, or be bi-valued, or be whatever number 
of values it is.

> 
> Every other formal system would try to force "a fish" into
> true or false and if that didn't work determine that the
> formal system is incomplete.

Nope, most formal system just don't define "a fish" as a statement in 
their langauge.

> 
>> IF you do mean this, then you first need to fully define how 
>> "incorrect" works in ALL the logical operators.
>>
> 
> (~True(L,x) ∧ ~True(L,~x)) ≡ ~Proposition(L,x)
> Every variable is screened this way before any other
> operations can be performed upon it.
> x = "a fish" rejects every expression referencing x.

Logic doesn't work that way.

Sorry, you are just totally ignorant of how formal logic works.

> 
>> It also means you need to figure out what you logic system supports, 
>> and can't just rely on the large base of work on normal binary logic.
>>
> 
> That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
> its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
> truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using language}
> is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
> using formal language and formalized natural language.

Nope, doesm't work that way. The problem is that most formal systems 
don't express them selves with "Natural Language".

And an "accurate model of the actual world" isn't available, so you are 
hypothocating on a non-existant thing.

> 
> 
>> Thare is a good aount of work on non-binary systems, and perhaps you 
>> can find one that is close enough to try to use, but YOU need to do 
>> that work.
>>
> 
> In other words it is too difficult for you to understand
> that "a fish" is not a proposition?

Nope, YOU are the one that says it is one, and needs to be handled.

What formal logic system do you think you are working in?

> 
>> And realize that you system isn't applicable to any theorem based on a 
>> binary logic system, since your system is not one.
>>
> 
> All of the current systems of logic inherit their notion of
> True(L,x) on the above basis.
> (~True(PA,g) ∧ ~True(PA,~g)) ≡ ~Proposition(PA,g)
> Mathematical incompleteness goes away.
> 

Nope, you just made your system inconsistant if it was powerful enough 
to express as a proposition in it that x in PA is ~True(PA, x).

Tarski shows a set of commonly held conditions that are sufficent to 
allow that expression to be a proposition in PA.

Just as Godel does in a different manner by constructing his Primative 
Recursive Relationship that detects a proof of his statement G.

>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We can't know for sure that x is incorrect until
>>>>> we see that True(L,~x) also evaluates to false.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And thus you system just blew up in a mass of flaming inconsistancy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is "a fish" true, false or not a proposition.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Since there is no requirement to check True(L, ~x) and it can't 
>>>> affect the value of ~True(L, x) you logic just doesn't work.
>>>>
>>> When x is defined to mean = ~True(L,x) in L
>>> then True(L,x) is false and True(L,~x) is false
>>> proving that x is not a proposition.
>>
>> But, since ~false isn't true, your system leaks information like crazy.
>>
> Not at all
> (~True(L,x) ∧ True(L,~x)) ≡ Conventional_False(L,x)
> (True(L,x) ~Proposition(L,x) ~True(L,~x)) ≡ Conventional_True(L,x)
> 
> Once all of the variables have been screened out for
> ~Proposition(L,x) then all of the conventional operations
> that are truth preserving can be applied to them.
> Expressions such as (x ∧ ~x) are reduced to false.
> 

But you don't get to "screen out" statments like that.

You just don't understand the structure of logic.

>>>
>>> Is it really that hard to see that "a fish" is
>>> not a proposition?
>>>
>>>> You need to go back and study how logic works, but my guess is you 
>>>> have wasted too much time on your other projects to do anything with 
>>>> this, and you have poisioned you reputation with all you lies so no 
>>>> one is going to look at this.
>>>>
>>> Try and show how "a fish" is true or false.
>>>
>>>> Pity, if you spent the last 20 year looking at this and seeing if 
>>>> you can work out the problems, it might have made an viable 
>>>> alternate form of logic, but we will never know since you killed it 
>>>> by lying about halting and incompleteness and Tarski.
>>>
>>> I did and it really seems that you are flat out lying about it.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========