Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 12:32:31 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <20b1dea98eda49e74e822c96b37565bb3eb36013@i2pn2.org>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me> <v8a4vf$uhll$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8aqh7$11ivs$1@dont-email.me> <v8cr4g$1gk19$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8dinp$1kii7$1@dont-email.me> <v8hv72$2mmsq$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8iisj$2qetj$1@dont-email.me> <v8kuhb$3d5q8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8lc7p$3f6vr$2@dont-email.me> <v8naa8$3uo7s$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8nqo7$1n09$1@dont-email.me> <v8sm9o$1gk42$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8t2fl$1ilg6$2@dont-email.me> <v8v97m$2cofk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8vusp$32fso$16@dont-email.me> <v91p95$3ppav$1@dont-email.me>
 <v92q4f$37e9$1@dont-email.me> <v94l1p$ldq7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v95c2j$p5rb$4@dont-email.me> <v95cke$p5rb$5@dont-email.me>
 <v977fo$gsru$1@dont-email.me> <v97goj$ielu$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9c93e$35sg6$1@dont-email.me> <v9d3k1$3ajip$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ffpr$3s45o$1@dont-email.me> <v9fkd4$3se8c$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9kg66$tdvb$1@dont-email.me> <v9nbjf$1dj8q$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:32:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2782045"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v9nbjf$1dj8q$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7796
Lines: 137

On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/15/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-13 12:43:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 8/13/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-08-12 13:44:33 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>> how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself,
>>>>>>>>>>> would be relevant to Quine's topic?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He mentions it 98 times in his paper
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
>>>>>>>>>> I haven't looked at it in years.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that matters
>>>>>>>>>>>> to me is that I have defined expressions of language that are
>>>>>>>>>>>> {true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language}
>>>>>>>>>>>> so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That does not justify lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
>>>>>>>>>> topic with any distraction that you can find.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
>>>>>>>>>> anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
>>>>>>>>>> distinction.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
>>>>>>>>> anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
>>>>>>>>> distinction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the
>>>>>>>>> expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of existence of an
>>>>>>>> algrithm makes something computable. You  can't compute if you 
>>>>>>>> con't
>>>>>>>> know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from
>>>>>>> the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal
>>>>>>> model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is
>>>>>>> how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice to see that you con't disagree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When the idea that I presented is fully understood
>>>>> it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.
>>>>
>>>> If you can't prove atl least that you have an interesting idea
>>>> nobody is going to stody it enough to understood.
>>>
>>> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition
>>> is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
>>> without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>>
>> Self-evident propositions are uninteresting.
>>
> 
> *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", so 
using the wrong definition of it proves nothing.

Note, by your definition, you accept that Godel's G, it True in PA, as 
its expression is connected through an INFINITE sequence of truth 
preserving operations to the axioms of PA, which are true by the meaning 
of the words.

Also, by your definition, you accept that Gode;'s G is NOT "provable" in 
PA, as it can be shown that there is no FINITE sequence of truth 
preserving operations to the aximos of PA.

Thus, by the definition of "Incompleteness", being that the system has 
at least one statement that it True in it, but can not be proven by it.

A statement is undecidable if we can not prove it to be true or false IN 
THAT SYSTEM, but it IS true or false in that system. Since G can be 
shown to be True in PA, because there IS an infinite sequence of steps 
in PA that establish it, and this is provable in MM to be true, and we 
can also show (with a proof in MM) that no finite sequence to prove it 
exists in PA, or disprove it in PA (since you can not disprove a true 
statement without making the system inconsistant), it says that G is an 
"undecidable" problem in PA, and thus PA is incomplete.

Your failure to understand just shows your utter ignorance of the subject.

> 
>>> Thus understanding the compositional meaning of my words is
>>> complete proof that they are true.
>>
>> Often your intended compositional meanings seem to differ from the
>> real compositional meanings as defined by dictionaries, grammar
>> books, and native speakers' intuitions.
>>
>> Epistemology is not relevant to the clarity communication. Grammar
>> of Common Language, including compositional semantics, is.
>>
> 
> This is how compositional semantics is formalized.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
> 

Which says nothing to support your claim. The statement of G is 
obvioulsy within the "domain of Discourse of PA. Thus Ontology doesn't 
reject the statement from PA, it will just recognize that not all 
statements in a domain are knowable.