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 19:26:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8abf1f38ebdb3ea63bd19cb2cdd0d871b6c7cc31@i2pn2.org>
References: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.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$1@dont-email.me>
 <760ff14f68f9118a99a020d503c27966871c12b6@i2pn2.org>
 <v6golj$sg7f$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 23:26:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2621133"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v6golj$sg7f$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9829
Lines: 210

On 7/8/24 9:13 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/8/2024 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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
>>
> Merely an assertion entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.
> You cannot show the steps of how I am wrong because I am correct.

OF course there can.

You haven't show ANY steps of how you get to your conclusion, so of 
course I can't point out which one is wrong. because you have given ZERO 
ground for it, just your INCORRECT claim of what truth means.

A clear example is Godel's G. It is shown with an infinite number of 
steps in F, as we can check each Natural Number individually (all 
countably infinite number of them), with each check taking a finite 
number of steps. Each of these tests will show that that given Natural 
Number n fails to pass the given Primative Recursive Relationship, so we 
have a path of infinite length that establishes it.

There can NOT be a finite length path of truth preserving steps that 
show show that no such number exists, as any such path could be encoded 
into a number that satisfies that Primative Recursive Relationship. Thus 
there can not be a finite proof of it.

Also, the statement can not be false, as if it was false, then there, by 
definition, WOULD be a number that satisfies the relationship, but by 
the structure of that relationship, and such number becomes a proof that 
NO such number exists.

> 
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> Insults do not count as supporting reasoning.
> You cannot show the steps of how I am wrong because I am correct.
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========