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,comp.theory
Subject: Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal
 september failure
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 07:10:52 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <760ff14f68f9118a99a020d503c27966871c12b6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.org>
 <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>
 <3f12eb90be522441c8b95d17d25767fcaf72ed2d@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cvqs$5vir$2@dont-email.me>
 <efced1648cf7ddc1c257d7c4369add3b391dd005@i2pn2.org>
 <v6d2r0$6cgn$2@dont-email.me>
 <931fe5b1e73d204bf20a268dd025489e3040371d@i2pn2.org>
 <v6e5ho$bbcb$2@dont-email.me>
 <0f3e40caf51b61ebb05c4ec2ae44042bff632017@i2pn2.org>
 <v6el1u$e6tb$1@dont-email.me>
 <3c9ef913b1fbbca50c1a4acd02401906646327ed@i2pn2.org>
 <RpKdnUjg8sjx0Bb7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <2d0b6260615af8afac79ee8de57bcd45c2f2056f@i2pn2.org>
 <v6fk9p$mr5k$1@dont-email.me>
 <8bd5f2159853ff17ef81b27a85141bccc324e7d9@i2pn2.org>
 <v6fkrb$mr5k$2@dont-email.me> <v6fl9a$mr5k$3@dont-email.me>
 <be9e12df297656b2d87502e8e083dba0202b94d6@i2pn2.org>
 <v6fng5$na6r$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:10:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2565030"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v6fng5$na6r$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6774
Lines: 135

On 7/7/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/7/2024 10:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/7/24 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/7/2024 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/7/2024 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/7/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/7/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/7/24 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/7/2024 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is "Not-a-logic-sentence" a truth value that True, of ~false 
>>>>>>>>> can return or not?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *I will try to be perfectly clear*
>>>>>>>> Not-a-logic-sentence(L,x) ≡ (~True(L,x) ∧ ~True(L,~x))
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words, you have no idea of how to express you concept in 
>>>>>>> the terms of how a logic would be built with it, as you just 
>>>>>>> don't undertand how logic works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
>>>>>> its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
>>>>>> truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using language}
>>>>>> is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
>>>>>> using formal language and formalized natural language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Word salad.
>>>>>
>>>>> No such model exists, so you are basing your system on faery dust.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just don't understand what you are talking about, and think 
>>>>> Formal Logic is just like the abstract philosophy you seemed to 
>>>>> have studied a bit of.
>>>>
>>>> Formal logic is a subset of this.
>>
>> Nope. Uses different (and stricter) rules.
>>
>> That you don't understand this just shows your ignorance, and is why 
>> you can't actually PROVE anything because the standard of proof is one 
>> of the big differences.
>>
>>>> Not-a-logic-sentence(PA,g) ≡ (~True(PA,g) ∧ ~True(PA,~g))
>>>> There are no truth preserving operations in PA to g or to ~g
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>>
>>> Within my analytical framework this Tarski sentence is merely
>>> self-contradictory
>>>
>>> (3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True. // (1) and (2) combined
>>
>> In other words, you don't understand his PROOF, Note (1) and (2) are 
>> NOT "assumptions" but statements of facts from ealier in the work.
>>
> 
> It does not matter how Tarski derived the self-contradictory
> expression it only matters that all such expressions cannot
> possibly be propositions.

Yes, it does.

First, it is NOT "self-contradictory", that is just your lie based on 
WROMG definitions, that by repeating it, you just prove yourself to be 
an ignorant pathological liar.

Second, If the statement has been PROVEN from "true" statements, then if 
it actually being contradictory says that something actually assumed in 
the proof is incorrect.

Fortunately, the statement isn't contradictory.

> 
> When a proof is done correctly it must be a sequence of truth
> preserving operations or it it wrong.

Right, and to show it is wrong you need to point out the step that is 
incorrect, not just that you don't like the answer.

> 
>> If you can't find the erroneous step to get them, you have no counter 
>> to his statement.
>>
> 
> *self-contradictory expressions must be rejected*

But it isn't self-contradictory, except when you apply your incorrect 
definitions. That shows YOUR definitions are wrong and must be rejected.

> 
>>>
>>> There are no truth preserving operations in Tarski's
>>> theory to x if and only if There are truth preserving
>>> operations in Tarski's theory to x
>>>
>>
>> Nope, there is no FINITE sequence of truth preserving operations (a 
>> proof) to x if and only if there are a (possibly infinite) sequence of 
>> truth perserving operations to x (meaning it is a true statement).
>>
>> This is possible if the only sequences of truth preserving operations 
>> to x are infinite in length.
>>
> 
> There cannot be any infinite sequence of truth preserving operations
> affirming operations that no finite sequence of truth preserving
> operations exists in this case.

Wrong. And

> 
> When there is a cycle in the directed graph of an evaluation sequence
> of an expression (unlike the proving the Goldbach conjecture) there
> is zero progress toward the goal.

But who says there is such a cycle?

You are just showing your stupidity.

> 
> ?- LP = not(true_(LP)).
> LP = not(true(LP)).
> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
> false.
> 

That Prolog can't handle it does not mean it isn't true.

You have been told that many times in the past, and you continued 
falling back to such statements just shows how stupid you are, and that 
you are nothing but an ignorant pathological lying idiot.