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: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 14:30:24 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3c9ef913b1fbbca50c1a4acd02401906646327ed@i2pn2.org>
References: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.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$2@dont-email.me>
 <0f3e40caf51b61ebb05c4ec2ae44042bff632017@i2pn2.org>
 <v6el1u$e6tb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 18:30:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2480388"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v6el1u$e6tb$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 12405
Lines: 294

On 7/7/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/7/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> True, False and IDK would be trivalued logic.
> True, False and not-a-logic-sentence is not actually trivalued logic.

Is "Not-a-logic-sentence" a truth value that True, of ~false can return 
or not?

If ANY of your predicates can return that value, it must be a 
truth-value and you have tri-valued logic.

If not, WHICH values (of true, false) are True(L, x) and ~True(L, x) 
when x is ~True(L, x), and ~True(L, x) must match the general rule for ~ 
on the value of True(L,x)

You can't be having slipper definition for your logic system.

> 
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> I use that example because it is easy to see that it is
> neither true nor false. It literally applies to any formal
> system as expressive as English.

But few logic system try to be as expressive as English. That is almost 
contrary to the goals of a Formal System.

You don't seem to understand how Formal Systems work, or what they are for.

> 
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
> That is its error.

No, that is YOUR error.

If you want to totally start over, go ahead, but it sounds like you 
don't have much time since you wasted the last 20 years.

> 
>> Sorry, you are just totally ignorant of how formal logic works.
>>
> Not at all formal logic is wrong because it does not do this.

Nope, YOU are wrong because you want Formal Logic to be something it isn't

If you want something else, go ahead and try to invent it. Your problem 
is you don't have much time after wasting the last 20 years on using 
your tools wrong.

> 
>>>
>>>> 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".
>>
> That formal systems are not typically very expressive
> is by no means any evidence at all that they cannot be as
> expressive as English.

They can be VERY expressive, they just avoid the ambiguity of natural 
language.

The problem isn't that English is "expresive" but that English can 
express too many meanings in a single sentence.

> 
>> And an "accurate model of the actual world" isn't available, so you 
>> are hypothocating on a non-existant thing.
>>
> That is always the way that new things come into existence.

Nope. Most new things are actually refinements in some way on the old, 
perhaps with a new twist.

They tend not to assume the impossible.

> 
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>
> 
> 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.

Not part of formal logic. You just don't know what you are talking about.

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========