Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 21:42:19 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d32b8b0551d4ab2a9bcd5b7a809a81c411310da2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.org> <v6c2td$3skuk$4@dont-email.me>
 <51aecdca646d067438e9cd44b11cb8bf9be933f2@i2pn2.org>
 <v6c69s$3u2mj$2@dont-email.me>
 <ffea314eb0c48ef1c7c52e41bbe5e596252363c9@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cajn$3uu9o$1@dont-email.me>
 <e25eac30415eb75101e6e8af05c3a40d6ea8dbda@i2pn2.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$1@dont-email.me>
 <3c9ef913b1fbbca50c1a4acd02401906646327ed@i2pn2.org>
 <v6ff58$ijn6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 01:42:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2480388"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v6ff58$ijn6$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4477
Lines: 79

On 7/7/24 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/7/2024 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/7/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/7/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/7/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/7/2024 6:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/6/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/6/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/6/24 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So if x is defined in L as ~True(L, x)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> what value does True(L, x) have?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> then True(L,x) evaluates to false ultimately meaning
>>>>>>>>> that x is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But doesn't ~false evaluate to True?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. ~false evaluates to true or incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, "incorrect" is an ACTUAL logic state, not just "sort of" and 
>>>>>> ~~P doesn't necessarily have the same value as P.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is something like tri-valued logic.
>>>>
>>>> It needs to either BE tri-valued, or be bi-valued, or be whatever 
>>>> number of values it is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> True, False and IDK would be trivalued logic.
>>> True, False and not-a-logic-sentence is not actually trivalued logic.
>>
>> Is "Not-a-logic-sentence" a truth value that True, of ~false can 
>> return or not?
>>
> 
> True(L,x)==false and True(L,~x)==false

I didn't ask about True(L, ~x).

I guess you can't read.

I take it then that

For x in L defined as ~True(L, x)

That True(L, x) is false, and thus

~True(L, x) must be true, as that is the logical negation of false, and 
thus x which is defined as such is also true, and tnue you system claims 
that True(L, <a true statement>) can be false, and thus blows up in 
inconsistancy.

> means that x is not a logic sentence.

In other words, you system can't handle references.

And thus is just a small logic system.

Note, there is no requirement in logic to check a function you arn't 
using to see if you can do what you want.

This is because True(L, x) is defined to have a meaningful answer even 
if the input isn't a truth-bearer, but just a syntactically correct 
statement.

> I will stop here because you get overwhelmed.
> 

Nope, you are stopping before you dig yourself too deep, but that it too 
late, by not showing how you handle the problem shown, you are just 
admitting that you don't have a way to handle it but are just ignoring 
that your system is broken or very limited.

Sorry, you just failed the test.