Path: ...!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
Subject: Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 10:53:19 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4d8c7b1c69915ebbe108d7f4e29cf6172eac7759@i2pn2.org>
References: <v86olp$5km4$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>
 <20b1dea98eda49e74e822c96b37565bb3eb36013@i2pn2.org>
 <v9o4p2$1h5u4$1@dont-email.me>
 <cd12fb81fcd05d2e112fc8aca2f5b791c521cfc9@i2pn2.org>
 <v9oddf$1i745$2@dont-email.me>
 <7f2a1f77084810d4cee18ac3b44251601380b93a@i2pn2.org>
 <v9ogmp$1i745$6@dont-email.me>
 <662de0ccc3dc5a5f0be0918d340aa3314d51a348@i2pn2.org>
 <v9oj4r$1i745$8@dont-email.me>
 <02642e518edd3aa9152cd47e4e527f21ee53a0e8@i2pn2.org>
 <v9okho$1i745$10@dont-email.me>
 <60c0214582c7f97e49ef6f8853bff95569774f97@i2pn2.org>
 <v9p7im$1p6bp$4@dont-email.me>
 <d67278caa0b8782725e806b61adf892028f2bf89@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qd2p$1tedb$10@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 14:53:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2897736"; 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: <v9qd2p$1tedb$10@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6766
Lines: 127

On 8/17/24 10:45 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/17/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/16/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/16/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
>>>>>>>>>>>>> did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are 
>>>>>>>>>>>> totally reformulate logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
>>>>>>>>>>> redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. 
>>>>>>>>>> They created a new definition of what a set was, and then 
>>>>>>>>>> showed what that implies, since by changing the definitions, 
>>>>>>>>>> all the old work of set theory has to be thrown out, and then 
>>>>>>>>>> we see what can be established.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> None of this is changing any more rules. All
>>>>>>>>> of these are the effects of the change of the
>>>>>>>>> definition of a set.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could do 
>>>>>>>> as basic operations ON a set.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, that 
>>>>>>>> ZFC is built on first-order logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set can 
>>>>>>>> not be a member of itself, and that we can count the members of 
>>>>>>>> a set.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>> If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change
>>>>>>> or was not required to defeat RP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, they needed to 
>>>>>> define the full set.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you problem is you just don't understand how formal logic 
>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think at a higher level of abstraction.
>>>>
>>>> No, you don't, unless you mean by that not bothering to make sure 
>>>> the details work.
>>>>
>>>> You can't do fundamental logic in the abstract.
>>>>
>>>> That is just called fluff and bluster.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All that they did is just like I said they redefined
>>>>> what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of details of
>>>>> how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement
>>>>> saying that all they did is redefine a set.
>>>>
>>>> Showing the sort of thing YOU need to do to redefine logic
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I said that ZFC redefined the notion of a set to get rid of RP.
>>> You show the steps of how ZFC redefined a set as your rebuttal.
>>
>> No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is just a LIE.
>>
>> They developed a full formal system.
>>
> 
> They did nothing besides change the definition of
> a set and the result of this was a new formal system.
> 

I guess you consider all the papers they wrote describing the effects of 
their definitions "nothing"

Papers published with peer-review.

If that was so "nothing", why haven't you done the same with your new 
idea about logic?

Are you so afraid that peer-review will utterly demolish your ideas?

Is the issue that you are mentally INCAPABLE of handling this task a factor?

The fact that to do that analysis means you have to understand how logic 
actually works a factor?

That just tryng to do it will show how utterly ignorant you are of what 
you are talking about a factor?

Sorry, you are just showing your utter stupidity.