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: Analytic Expressions of language not linked to their semantic
 meaning are simply untrue
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 13:53:31 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9808bbccb9a847f1389b525845d7944d2826ab8e@i2pn2.org>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me> <v8a4vf$uhll$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8aqh7$11ivs$1@dont-email.me> <v8cr4g$1gk19$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8dinp$1kii7$1@dont-email.me> <v8hv72$2mmsq$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8iisj$2qetj$1@dont-email.me> <v8kuhb$3d5q8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8lc7p$3f6vr$2@dont-email.me>
 <9d7f02ce4b72af3d518594b5446d4fe8b19fbd6d@i2pn2.org>
 <v8llkp$3h8m2$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 17:53:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1342259"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v8llkp$3h8m2$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5101
Lines: 94

On 8/3/24 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/3/2024 11:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/3/24 9:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/3/2024 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-08-02 12:19:31 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/2/2024 1:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-31 14:46:17 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/31/2024 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-30 13:40:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-29 00:44:41 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The truth about every expression of language that can be known
>>>>>>>>>>> to be true on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is
>>>>>>>>>>> that a lack of connection simply means untrue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does that really mean something? If the significance of the 
>>>>>>>>>> lack of
>>>>>>>>>> connection is restricted to sentences where the connection exists
>>>>>>>>>> then it seems that you are talking about nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/
>>>>>>>>> I had to redefine the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic
>>>>>>>>> distinction because Quine convinced most everyone that this
>>>>>>>>> distinction does not exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You cannot redefine side wihout redefining the other side and the
>>>>>>>> distinction itself. Is your redefinition equivalent to the one
>>>>>>>> at https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/ or did
>>>>>>>> you find out that that distincition is not the one that exists?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quine got totally confused by synonymity. He never understood
>>>>>>> that the term {Bachelor} was defined in terms of
>>>>>>> (~Married + Adult + Male).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not a good idea to lie about other people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When reqding Quine, you should ask yourself why your presentation
>>>>>> is much less convincing than Quine's.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try and show the details of how I am incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> What you said (quoted above) about Quine is insulting and unjustified,
>>>> which alone is wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The bottom line here is that every objection that he could
>>> have possibly made is addressed by this augmentation to
>>> the definition of {analytic truth}
>>>
>>> *Original definition* of {Analytic truth}
>>> Every expression of (formal or natural language) that is
>>> true on the basis of its meaning...
>>>
>>> *Is augmented by this*
>>> within a system of reasoning is only true when this
>>> expression is linked by truth preserving operations to
>>> its meaning within this system using this language.
>>>
>>> The superset of all of these systems that contains all
>>> analytic truth is called {the accurate model of the actual world}.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> And so you agree that Godel's G is True in PA.
>>
> 
> It seems that you are the only one that believes that
> there are any sequence of truth preserving operations
> from G to the axioms of PA showing that G is true in PA.
> 

You are sorely mistaken in that beleif, but that error is caused by your 
ignorance of the topic.

Anyone who understands Godel's proof would understand that fact.

Note, you have the sentence backwards, the sequence is from the axioms 
to G, not G to the axioms.

That just shows you don't understand how to do logical proofs.

We know what we can demonstrate by a sequence from the axioms to the 
statement.

We can form an actual proof for each individual number, but just 
cranking the Relationship (which will always have a finite number of 
steps) showing that this number does not satisfy the relationship.

By just chaining the infinite set of these proofs for every number, we 
get that infinite chain of steps that establish G as true.