Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_G=C3=B6del=27s_Basic_Logic_Course_at_Notre_Dame_=28?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?Was=3A_Analytic_Truth-makers=29?=
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 22:15:34 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <635f8fab50f7f29ae018990ab0bea4edc26fb7ff@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7m26d$nrr4$1@dont-email.me>
 <e41a2d324173031e1fe47acc0fd69b94b7aba55e@i2pn2.org>
 <v7msg0$sepk$1@dont-email.me>
 <3fb77583036a3c8b0db4b77610fb4bf4214c9c23@i2pn2.org>
 <v7much$sepk$2@dont-email.me>
 <9577ce80fd6c8a3d5dc37b880ce35a4d10d12a0e@i2pn2.org>
 <v7n3ho$t590$1@dont-email.me>
 <7d9b88425623e1166e358f1bce4c3a2767c36da0@i2pn2.org>
 <v7naae$120r5$1@dont-email.me> <v7o64d$7r0l$1@solani.org>
 <v7ogdr$17h8r$9@dont-email.me> <v7p499$8bb2$5@solani.org>
 <v7p4mt$8bl4$1@solani.org> <v7ph81$1dv95$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 02:15:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="142535"; 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: <v7ph81$1dv95$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3418
Lines: 60

On 7/23/24 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/23/2024 3:44 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
>> Of course you can restrict yourself to
>> only so called "decidable" sentences A,
>>
>> i.e. sentences A where:
>>
>> True(L,A) v True(L,~A)
>>
>> But this doesn't mean that all sentences
>> are decidable, if the language allows for
>> example at least one propositional variables p,
>>
>> then you have aleady an example of an
>> undecidable sentences, you even don't
>> need anything Gödel, Russell, or who knows
>>
>> what, all you need is bivalence, which was
>> already postualated by Aristoteles.
>>
>> Principle of bivalence
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_bivalence
>>
>> if you assume that a propostional variable
>> is "variably", meaning it can take different truth
>> values depending on different possible worlds,
>>
>> or state of affairs, or valuations, or how ever
>> you want to call it. Then a propositional variable
>> is the prime example of an undecided sentence.
>>
> 
> The key difference is that we no long use the misnomer
> "undecidable" sentence and instead call it for what it
> really is an expression that is not a truth bearer, or
> proposition in L.

Which isn't a tually a mismomer, it just shows you dont understand the 
mtechnical meaning of the term. But then, since you decided not to learn 
about the fields, you don't know any of the technical meaning of the 
words, and just misuse them all.

> 
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Thats a little bit odd to abolish incompletness.
>>> Take p, an arbitrary propositional variable.
>>> Its neither the case that:
>>>
>>> True(L,p)
>>>
>>> Nor is ihe case that:
>>>
>>> True(L,~p)
>>>
>>> Because there are always at least two possible worlds.
>>> One possible world where p is false, making True(L,p)
>>> impossible, and one possible world where p is true,
>>>
>>> making True(L,~p) impossible.
>