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: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 19:36:04 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7b951f16a7aa1f1cd26fb71cea0ecf5c536e8ba3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@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>
 <7b3df4b2e110cce7c51ca2ce0b82b26531030402@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r4dp$1tedb$39@dont-email.me>
 <1b66f6b4e791240d42b21207e2c0eaa9362932b8@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r5ok$1tedb$41@dont-email.me>
 <44045521a1d427b581c2aa7b6e6da66614310453@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r7rj$1tedb$43@dont-email.me>
 <5cf9fc376cc61abc8b6cb5d8631887b48c7d2f0b@i2pn2.org>
 <v9raus$1tedb$46@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 23:36:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2897736"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v9raus$1tedb$46@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7117
Lines: 141

On 8/17/24 7:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/17/2024 6:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/17/24 6:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/17/2024 5:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/17/24 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/17/2024 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/17/24 5:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/17/24 4:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is more of a somewhat poorly defined process than it is a 
>>>>>>>>> defined term.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thinks IGNORANT you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The vast disagreement on very important  truths
>>>>>>> such as climate change and election denial seems
>>>>>>> to prove that the notion of truth lacks a process
>>>>>>> sufficiently well defined that it is accessible
>>>>>>> to most.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But has nothing to do with what Philosophy thinks of as truth, but 
>>>>>> of people being closed minded
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The process is not sufficiently well defined such
>>>>> that divergence from truth smacks people in the face.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, that isn't the problem, it has nothing to do with Logic or 
>>>> Philosophy, by with Psychology, so trying to improve logic or 
>>>> Philosophy will not help with it,
>>>>
>>>> When people ignore "facts", you can't help with logic.
>>>>
>>>> YOU prove that point,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wittgenstein said the same thing.
>>>>>>> Try to name any logician that has any history of
>>>>>>> being open to critiques of the received view and
>>>>>>> you will come up empty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your problem is you reject that logic HAS rules that need to be 
>>>>>>>> followed, 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just like I said a learned-by-rote view.
>>>>>>> Not any what happens if we change this rule? POV
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, I said has rules, and different forms of logic have 
>>>>>> different rules, something that seems foreign to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We change one key rule of logic and then all of the
>>>>> logical paradoxes suddenly disappear and logic becomes
>>>>> complete, coherent and consistent.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And limited, too limited to be useful.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not at all, yet you only care about rebuttal.
>>>
>>> The formal systems are essentially the same as
>>> before except they exclude self-contradictory
>>> expressions as bad input.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, because changing a core definition invalidates ANY proof that 
>> used the old version of the definition until it is shown that it 
>> doesn't changee the proof.
>>
> 
> The non-existence of a concrete counter-example would prove otherwise.
> In this simplified version of my proposal a valid counter-example
> is categorically impossible.

Nope, classical fallacy.

> 
> When the ONLY change is that self-contradictory expressions
> are rejected then this cannot possibly have any effect on
> anything not involving self-contradictory expressions.
> 
> When all of your eggs are white then none of your eggs are black.
> 
> 

Nope, just shows you don't understand what you are talking about.

If everything that was a true statement before is still a true 
statement, then you restrictions did nothing.

And perhaps that is correct, as most logic systems already "reject" 
self-contradictory expressions as non-truth bearers. After all, the 
normal definition of a statement being true is that it has a, possibly 
infinite, path from the axioms of the system through the proven theorems 
to the statement.

The issue with the "True" predicate, is that the way it is defined, it 
is allowed to be given statements that are neither true or false, but 
can not have a truth value, but are syntactically valid, and for these, 
since they are not true, it is to respond false, but because of the 
power of that system, we can construct a statement that uses the True 
predicate in a self-contradictory way that means that the True predicate 
can't form a correct asnwer.