Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new
 basis --- infallibly correct
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:06:40 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <89d62cf2d29f44ea454c2e729ac0ea373f242db0@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vgnsho$3qq7s$2@dont-email.me>
 <vgo157$n00$1@news.muc.de> <vgo4ia$3sfle$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgo7ri$30iv$1@news.muc.de> <vgo89i$3t6n8$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgoand$2464$1@news.muc.de> <vgobg7$3tnrn$2@dont-email.me>
 <vgodcf$kll$1@news.muc.de> <vgoed9$3ucjr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgoi51$kll$2@news.muc.de> <vgojp1$3v611$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgol50$kll$3@news.muc.de> <vgom8r$3vue8$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgonlv$kll$4@news.muc.de> <vgoqv6$qht$2@dont-email.me>
 <vgq0dv$1trm$1@news.muc.de> <vgqifj$e0q0$2@dont-email.me>
 <e3866f9771ef87549806453ea06529aed40c6789@i2pn2.org>
 <vgr3qg$hf6i$1@dont-email.me>
 <5b139a59da876d152416698f9a3da421af577560@i2pn2.org>
 <vgrafl$j1e0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 15:06:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1977361"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vgrafl$j1e0$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3432
Lines: 39

On 11/10/24 5:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/10/2024 2:39 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sun, 10 Nov 2024 14:07:44 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 11/10/2024 1:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/24 10:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/10/2024 4:03 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/9/2024 4:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2024 3:45 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>
>>>> Sorry, but until you actually and formally fully define your logic
>>>> system, you can't start using it.
>>> When C is a necessary consequence of the Haskell Curry elementary
>>> theorems of L (Thus stipulated to be true in L) then and only then is C
>>> is True in L.
>>> This simple change does get rid of incompleteness because Incomplete(L)
>>> is superseded and replaced by Incorrect(L,x).
>> I still can’t see how this makes ~C provable.
>>
> 
> If C is not provable it is merely rejected as incorrect
> not used as any basis to determine that L is incomplete.
> 
> For many reasons: "A sequence of truth preserving operations"
> is a much better term than the term "provable".
> 

But since there exist statements that are True but not Provable. except 
by your incorrect definition of Provable, your logic is just broken.

To try to define True as Provable means that one of the categories must 
be changed, and thus your logic must be less powerful.

If you reduce Truth to just what is Provable, you system has lost some 
truths, and likely even some that were provable before as you need to 
limit what can be said.

If you expand Provable to Truth, then you have lost the concept of 
Knowledge, that was based on Provable.