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: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 23:30:53 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <be9e12df297656b2d87502e8e083dba0202b94d6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.org> <v6cf9d$3viun$3@dont-email.me>
 <f22abb5f17f657bd1122de3c6339beadf4fb3e8f@i2pn2.org>
 <v6ch6a$13k$2@dont-email.me>
 <4ce79acf7c53160136f77603265cc1e5a5d3e34e@i2pn2.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$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 03:30:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2480389"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v6fl9a$mr5k$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4865
Lines: 78

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.

If you can't find the erroneous step to get them, you have no counter to 
his statement.

> 
> 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.

You are just demonstrating your ignorance of what you talk about.

Because you don't understand the difference between a true statement and 
a proven statement aka a known statement, you don't understand what he 
is talking about and thus just continue to LIE.