Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal
 september failure
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 22:50:56 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2d0b6260615af8afac79ee8de57bcd45c2f2056f@i2pn2.org>
References: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.org>
 <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$2@dont-email.me>
 <0f3e40caf51b61ebb05c4ec2ae44042bff632017@i2pn2.org>
 <v6el1u$e6tb$1@dont-email.me>
 <3c9ef913b1fbbca50c1a4acd02401906646327ed@i2pn2.org>
 <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 02:50:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2480388"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3517
Lines: 37

On 7/7/24 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/7/2024 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> Is "Not-a-logic-sentence" a truth value that True, of ~false can 
>> return or not?
>>
> 
> *I will try to be perfectly clear*
> Not-a-logic-sentence(L,x) ≡ (~True(L,x) ∧ ~True(L,~x))
> 

In other words, you have no idea of how to express you concept in the 
terms of how a logic would be built with it, as you just don't undertand 
how logic works.

That isn't a problem unless you want to actually try to define a logic 
system, which it seems you are trying to do, in which case it is a BIG 
problem.

Note, one basic feature of logic, is someone using it doesn't need to 
look at terms they are not interested in and not using,

Thus, when I define that x is defined as ~True(L, x) and asking what 
value True(L, x) is, and why, since you say it is false, that we can't 
say that since x is defined as ~True(L, x) and thus would be evaluated 
to be ~false, which is true, and thus you are saying that True(L, true) 
is false which is a contradiction to its defintion.

YOu can't say but over here ,,, as that doesn't matter.

Something is wrong with your definition of True(L, x) or you system just 
can't handle statements with references like that, or it just doesn't work.

If you can't handle that sort of reference, then you can't handle 
mathematics, as Godel showed we can make such references with mathematics.

IF you can't even DEFINE how your system works, how do you expect to 
build anything with it?