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 16:37:35 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8afe6c7a528a79eb88aa4754f84d524134d83cc6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me>
 <d67278caa0b8782725e806b61adf892028f2bf89@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qd2p$1tedb$10@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 20:37:35 -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: <v9qv6c$1tedb$34@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6666
Lines: 124

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.

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.

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.

> 
> 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.

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.