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: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 07:57:30 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <51da29787d62e4c56d7de7cb5d2c93e15e4b0716@i2pn2.org>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me> <v95c2j$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> <v9sikj$2brft$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9sn0p$2c67u$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 11:57:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2996739"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v9sn0p$2c67u$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3223
Lines: 32

On 8/18/24 7:47 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/18/2024 5:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-17 14:45:45 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Yes they did. They did show that the new system is similar enough to
>> the old systems to be called "set theory" and sufficiently useful.
>>
> 
> They redefined the notion of a set in set theory and that
> by itself got rid of Russell's Paradox. Mostly this disallows
> a set to be a member of itself.
> 
> I redefine the notion of formal system in math and logic
> and this by itself gets rids of undecidability. Mostly this
> rejects self-contradictory expressions.
> 

But that is an act you can not do by the rules of logic.

You CAN create a new system with your new definition, which you are 
welcome to try to spend your next 20 years or so doing (if you still 
have them), but you can not just change the definitions in the existing 
systems, as that just doens't work, and your attempting to do so just 
shows your ignorance of how Formal Logic works.