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: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 22:16:26 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3f12eb90be522441c8b95d17d25767fcaf72ed2d@i2pn2.org>
References: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.org> <v69k46$3duna$1@dont-email.me>
 <49291bd9f18eaf11097b6a26f062f54b7f4d6fa9@i2pn2.org>
 <v69pca$3eq6r$1@dont-email.me>
 <7e4f146addad55792c0f18ab92d2092ebcc5dbfd@i2pn2.org>
 <v69scb$3fc2r$1@dont-email.me>
 <6e51f0e94c1e00fcaec8897b4374547bfa2d2be1@i2pn2.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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 02:16:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2381982"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v6csla$1otr$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4808
Lines: 81

On 7/6/24 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/6/24 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2024 6:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/6/24 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/6/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/6/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/6/2024 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> The problem here is you logic doesn't actually allow for the 
>>>>>>>> necessaery references in it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all. My logic is simply smart enough to reject
>>>>>>> non-truth-bearers AKA expressions that are not valid
>>>>>>> propositions. It does not stupidly falsely assume that
>>>>>>> every expression is a valid proposition.\
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Logic isn't "Smart", it follows its rules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your rules are just inconsistent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When-so-ever true means provable and false means not provable
>>>>> the meaning of these words proves that such a system cannot
>>>>> get stuck in pathological expressions.
>>>>
>>>> And such a definition requires the system to be keep simple or it 
>>>> becomes inconsistant.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LP := ~True(LP) has a cycle in the directed
>>>>> graph of the elements of the expression related
>>>>> to each other that Prolog and MTT detects.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, what value does True(LP) return?
>>>>
>>>
>>> True(L,x)  means x is true.
>>> ~True(L,x) means x is untrue which includes false and not a proposition.
>>>
>>> True(L,~x) means x is false.
>>> ~True(L,~x) means x is unfalse which includes true and not a 
>>> proposition.
>>>
>>> True(L,LP) is false and True(L,~LP) is false which means LP
>>> is not a proposition.
>>
>> And if x is defined in L as ~True(L,x) means that True(L, x) is false, 
>> then x being the negation of that result is a true statement.
>>
> *That is not the way it works in my system or Prolog*
> ~True(L, x)  means x is either false or not a proposition
> ~True(L, ~x) means x is either true or not a proposition
> 
> Try reading those two lines 150 more times and maybe it will
> break through your ADD. Alternatively you are simply a liar.
> 
> It is something like trivalent logic {true, false, incorrect}
> ~true is false or incorrect.
> ~false is true or incorrect.
> 

So if x is defined in L as ~True(L, x)

what value does True(L, x) have?

it seems you just are too stupid to even understand the question.

I am not asking you to quote your rules, but apply them.


Then if that is what True(L,x) is, what does that make the truth value 
of the statemet x be since x is defined as ~True(L, x) using that above 
value for True(L, x).


And how do you explain the conflict when you then look at that value and 
what True said?

It seems, you are just too stupid to know how to even apply your logic, 
or maybe it just is unable to BE applied, becuase it is so broken.