Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception ---
 Tarski
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 18:05:02 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8fd6dea147c3f4bf5558d7745b93a25a5e69539f@i2pn2.org>
References: <vnh0sq$35mcm$1@dont-email.me> <vni4ta$3ek8m$1@dont-email.me>
 <vnikre$3hb19$1@dont-email.me> <vnkov9$1971$1@dont-email.me>
 <vnl9vj$4f8i$1@dont-email.me> <vnndqs$kef3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vnpd96$vl84$1@dont-email.me> <vnqm3p$1apip$1@dont-email.me>
 <vnqsbh$1c5sq$1@dont-email.me> <vnsm90$1pr86$1@dont-email.me>
 <vnte6s$1tra8$1@dont-email.me> <vnv4tf$2a43e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo0249$2eqdl$1@dont-email.me> <vo1qae$2s4cr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo2i10$302f0$1@dont-email.me> <vo4nj4$3f6so$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo5btf$3ipo2$1@dont-email.me> <vo7ckh$q2p$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo7tdg$36ra$6@dont-email.me> <6f2dndBWC7gd4Dr6nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <vo9krm$3octb$1@dont-email.me> <voae76$m3dj$1@dont-email.me>
 <3f1ed83042ed4a260d1a63ef7c61528ea9858947@i2pn2.org>
 <vobaaa$rhmq$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 23:05:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3492471"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vobaaa$rhmq$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6222
Lines: 123

On 2/9/25 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/9/2025 11:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/9/25 9:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/9/2025 1:18 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>>> On 08/02/2025 16:51, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> On 02/08/2025 07:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> (2) Semantics is fully integrated into every expression of
>>>>>> language with each unique natural language sense meaning
>>>>>> of a word having its own GUID.
>>>>
>>>> Illusion and the tyranny of delusion, ad nauseam.
>>>>
>>>>>> And I am finishing the job. I may have only one month left.
>>>>>> The cancer treatment that I will have next month has a 5% chance
>>>>>> of killing me and a 1% chance of ruining my brain. It also has
>>>>>> about a 70% chance of giving me at least two more years of life.
>>>>
>>>> Food be your medicine, medicine be your food.  Conversely,
>>>> good luck with any of that.
>>>>
>>>>> Instead of just usual model theory and axiomatics
>>>>> and "what's true in the logical theory", "what's
>>>>> not falsified in the scientific theory", you can
>>>>> have a theory where the quantity is truth, and
>>>>> then there's a Comenius language of it that only
>>>>> truisms are well-formed formulas, then the Liar
>>>>> "paradox" is only a prototype of a fallacy,
>>>>
>>>> Rather, then there is no such thing as a "fallacy", only
>>>> flat positivism and Newspeak.  Indeed, Popper already is
>>>> yet another bad joke at best, but WTF would you know...
>>>>
>>>
>>> In other words you did not understand what he said thus
>>> replied to his words with nonsense gibberish pure rhetoric
>>> with no actual basis in reasoning.
>>>
>>>  >> there's a Comenius language of it that only
>>>  >> truisms are well-formed formulas
>>>
>>> True(L,x) <is> a mathematical mapping from finite string
>>> expressions of language through a truthmaker to finite
>>> strings expressions providing formalized semantic meanings
>>> making the expression true.
>>>
>>> The prototype of a fallacy that he referred to is the
>>> recursive structure of pathological self-reference that
>>> never resolves to a truth value.
>>
>> And, such a mapping can't exist if the language allows references like:
>>
>> x is defined to be !True(L, x)
>>
> 
> When we frame it the succinct way that Ross framed it
>  >> there's a Comenius language of it that only
>  >> truisms are well-formed formulas

And if True(L, x) isn't "well formed" then True fails to meet the 
requirements of a predicate, so you are just admitting that the required 
predicate doesn't exist.

If it considers that statement x to be ill formed, and thus return 
false, then !True(L, x) must be true, or your logic doesn't provide a 
needed logical operator.

And if True considers a true statement to be not-well formed, it 
violates your definition, and thus logic fails.

> 
> Then the above expression is simply rejected as not
> a WFF of this Comenius language.

And you thus admit that you logic doesn't meed the requirement for the 
proof.

Yes, you can get rid of incompleteness by hobbling your logic and not 
allowing it the power to express the required things.

Of course, part of the problem is I belive Comenius was just a 
philosopher in the broad sense, and not dealing with things in the field 
of FORMAL logic.

> 
>> As such a statement can't be mapped to True or False without also 
>> mapping True to False or False to True.
>>
>> Note, he shows that such a statement CAN be formed in logic system 
>> with certain minimal properties, like being able to express the 
>> Natural Numbers and their properties.
>>
>> So, I guess you are admitting that to you "logic" can't handle 
>> something like mathematics.
>>
> 
> The Comenius language expresses the key essence of the most
> important aspect of my idea, rejecting expressions that do
> not evaluate to Boolean as ill-formed. It only has TRUE
> and ill-formed. My system has TRUE, FALSE and ill-formed.
> 
> All undecidable propositions fall into the ill-formed category
> and logic is otherwise essentially unchanged.
> 

Which isn't an allowed operation for a predicate, Like True, in Formal 
Logic.

You are just showing that you don't understand how logic works.

Sorry, that is just the facts, you are proving yourself to be a lying idiot.


>>>
>>>> We live in a yellow submarine, just yellower and yellower.
>>>>
>>>> -Julio
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
>