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: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 18:03:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <662de0ccc3dc5a5f0be0918d340aa3314d51a348@i2pn2.org>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me> <v8iisj$2qetj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8kuhb$3d5q8$1@dont-email.me> <v8lc7p$3f6vr$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8naa8$3uo7s$1@dont-email.me> <v8nqo7$1n09$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8sm9o$1gk42$1@dont-email.me> <v8t2fl$1ilg6$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8v97m$2cofk$1@dont-email.me> <v8vusp$32fso$16@dont-email.me>
 <v91p95$3ppav$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 22:03:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2803750"; 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: <v9ogmp$1i745$6@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8611
Lines: 163

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:
>>>>>>> On 8/15/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-13 12:43:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-12 13:44:33 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be relevant to Quine's topic?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He mentions it 98 times in his paper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't looked at it in years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me is that I have defined expressions of language 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {true on the basis of their meaning expressed in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That does not justify lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic with any distraction that you can find.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algrithm makes something computable. You  can't compute if 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you con't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice to see that you con't disagree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the idea that I presented is fully understood
>>>>>>>>>>> it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you can't prove atl least that you have an interesting idea
>>>>>>>>>> nobody is going to stody it enough to understood.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition
>>>>>>>>> is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its 
>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>> without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Self-evident propositions are uninteresting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *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.

Axiom Schema of Specification: We can build a sub-set from another set 
and a set of conditions. (Which implies the existance of the empty set)

Axiom of Pairing: Given two sets, we can make a set that contains the 
two sets.

Axiom of Union: Given two (or more) sets, we can make a set of the 
elements that exist in any of the sets.

Axiom schema of Replacement: We can build a set from another set and a 
mapping function

Axiom of Infiity: We can make a set with a countable infinite number of 
members.

Axiom of Power Set: There exist a set that contains every subset of 
another set.

To move from ZF to ZFC we add:
Axiom of Choice/Well Ordering:


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