Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!s1-1.netnews.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!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 17:03:57 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7b3df4b2e110cce7c51ca2ce0b82b26531030402@i2pn2.org>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me>
 <4d8c7b1c69915ebbe108d7f4e29cf6172eac7759@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qel5$1tedb$13@dont-email.me>
 <43690773dba43c5d93d11635af0a26532e5be390@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qgn7$1tedb$15@dont-email.me>
 <6272b80d0aeaca324ac8624dce71945edeb59092@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qjg5$1tedb$17@dont-email.me>
 <2e642af254f6140ce8711da64f31d4fd8467d58b@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qkeb$1tedb$19@dont-email.me>
 <f883e0312dcbce8663eaa445348e225687d83959@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qm86$1tedb$22@dont-email.me>
 <a2c1ed800e02c5e922df63241206c00d855680d5@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qncv$1tedb$25@dont-email.me>
 <2d7efb21a7466aa56ed7be937da998852f6882af@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qon8$1tedb$27@dont-email.me>
 <e452294ec866e3297f9bfec55eff17db4a347a25@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qpju$1tedb$30@dont-email.me>
 <1ec5e64194f4e88998b8d462497e3a378e1d91fd@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qsn9$1tedb$33@dont-email.me>
 <c094e38b272f3522f77a85301391ec1d3ae399a9@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qv6c$1tedb$34@dont-email.me>
 <8afe6c7a528a79eb88aa4754f84d524134d83cc6@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r2nc$1tedb$37@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 21:03:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2897735"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v9r2nc$1tedb$37@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Received-Bytes: 7946
Bytes: 8116
Lines: 164

On 8/17/24 4:55 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/17/2024 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/17/24 3:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/17/2024 2:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/17/24 3:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/17/2024 1:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/17/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/17/24 2:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you are just admitting you don't understand 
>>>>>>>>>> how logic works.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you CHANGE an existing axiom, everything that depended on 
>>>>>>>>>> that axiom needs to be re-verified.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you ADD a new axiom, it doesn't affect ANY argument that 
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't try to use it, and thus doesn't affect Russel's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I add the definition for the True(L, x) predicate
>>>>>>>>> and every instance of the notion of True changes
>>>>>>>>> in every formal mathematical logic system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But either that changes what that instance means,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I stipulate what True(L,x) means then that is done.
>>>>>>> It does not go on and in any circle endlessly redefining itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. You can say for YOUR usage, what you mean by True(L,x). You 
>>>>>> can't force others to use that, 
>>>>>
>>>>> Likewise ZFC is a mere opinion that most everyone chooses to ignore.
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't an "opinion", it is a set of definitions, and the logic 
>>>> system that comes out of them.
>>>>
>>>> People are of course allowed to choose which ever set theory they 
>>>> want to use, but if they choose to use Naive Set Theory, they have 
>>>> the problem that it is known to be inconsistant, and thus any 
>>>> "proof" they build is suspect.
>>>>
>>>> They can also shoose some other Set theory  Theory, maybe even just 
>>>> ZF, or to one of the derived theorys like Morse-Kelly, or to 
>>>> something different like one of the New Foundations Systems. The key 
>>>> is you tend to need to specify if you differ from ZFC which is 
>>>> generally considered the default.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be having trouble with the words you are using.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not that. I am taking the hypothetical extreme position
>>> to see where you set your own boundaries on this.
>>
>> Which just means you don't know what you words mean.
>>
> 
> I wanted to see what you thought the words mean.
> You did come up with a good answer.
> 
>> ZFC isn't an "Opinion", meaning a personal idea about an issue, but is 
>> a definition of a possible Set Theory. You could assume they have an 
>> opinion that is it a GOOD definition for Set Theory, but that is 
>> irrelevent.
>>
>> They never claimed that it was the ONLY Set Theory, just that it was 
>> *A* Set Theory that provides a good basis for the field.
>>
> 
> They may have only claimed that yet they did more.
> They corrected the incoherence of naive set theory.
> 
>> So, I don't see where your "possition" makes any sense, but just shows 
>> a total misunderstanding of what you are talking about.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> or reinterprete what others have said or proven based on you 
>>>>>> stipulation, in fact, by stipulating that definition, anythig that 
>>>>>> uses any other definition of it becomes out of bounds for your 
>>>>>> argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everything in logic the depended on some notion of True is
>>>>>>> changed. Any logic operations that were not truth preserving
>>>>>>> are discarded. The notion of valid inference is also changed
>>>>>>> because it was not truth preserving.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And needs to be reproved to see if it is still true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When a conclusion is not a necessary consequence of all of its
>>>>>>> premises then the argument is invalid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, so YOUR argument here is invalid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is proven totally true entirely on the basis of the
>>>>> meaning of its words. Math conventions to the contrary
>>>>> simply ignore this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope. You are just proving by the meaning of the words that you are 
>>>> totally ignorant of how logic works.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but that is the facts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Logic is currently defined to work contrary to the way that
>>> truth itself actually works. No logician ever noticed this
>>> because testing the coherence of basic principles of logic
>>> is outside of the scope of logicians.
>>
>> That may be YOUR OPINION, but "Truth" (in logic) is actualy a DEFINED 
>> TERM.
>>
> 
> It is more of a somewhat poorly defined process than it is a defined term.
> 

Thinks IGNORANT you.


>>>
>>> They are generally a learned-by-rote bunch. Philosophy of
>>> logic delves into this more deeply the problem. The
>>> learned-by-rote bunch assumes that learning by rote makes
>>> them philosophers. They tend to push actual philosophers
>>> out by denigrating them in the philosophy of logic spaces.
>>> Wittgenstein had no patience with them.
>>>
>>
>> No, you have your never-learned-because-of-ignorance ideas that are 
>> just incoherent.
>>
> 
> It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
> and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.

Thinks IGNORANT YOU.

> 
>> Your trying to ally with Wittgenstein doesn't really help you, as his 
>> ideas were not always accepted, and considered prone to error, not 
>> unlike your own.
>>
> 
> It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
> and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========