Path: ...!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: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 10:40:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d67278caa0b8782725e806b61adf892028f2bf89@i2pn2.org>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me> <v8vusp$32fso$16@dont-email.me>
 <v91p95$3ppav$1@dont-email.me> <v92q4f$37e9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v94l1p$ldq7$1@dont-email.me> <v95c2j$p5rb$4@dont-email.me>
 <v95cke$p5rb$5@dont-email.me> <v977fo$gsru$1@dont-email.me>
 <v97goj$ielu$1@dont-email.me> <v9c93e$35sg6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9d3k1$3ajip$1@dont-email.me> <v9ffpr$3s45o$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9fkd4$3se8c$1@dont-email.me> <v9kg66$tdvb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9nbjf$1dj8q$1@dont-email.me>
 <20b1dea98eda49e74e822c96b37565bb3eb36013@i2pn2.org>
 <v9o4p2$1h5u4$1@dont-email.me>
 <cd12fb81fcd05d2e112fc8aca2f5b791c521cfc9@i2pn2.org>
 <v9oddf$1i745$2@dont-email.me>
 <7f2a1f77084810d4cee18ac3b44251601380b93a@i2pn2.org>
 <v9ogmp$1i745$6@dont-email.me>
 <662de0ccc3dc5a5f0be0918d340aa3314d51a348@i2pn2.org>
 <v9oj4r$1i745$8@dont-email.me>
 <02642e518edd3aa9152cd47e4e527f21ee53a0e8@i2pn2.org>
 <v9okho$1i745$10@dont-email.me>
 <60c0214582c7f97e49ef6f8853bff95569774f97@i2pn2.org>
 <v9p7im$1p6bp$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 14:40:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2897735"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v9p7im$1p6bp$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7918
Lines: 160

On 8/17/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/16/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/16/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
>>>>>>>>>>>>> F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
>>>>>>>>>>>>> x is simply untrue in F.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But you clearly don't understand the meaning of 
>>>>>>>>>>>> "undecidability"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
>>>>>>>>>>> did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are 
>>>>>>>>>> totally reformulate logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
>>>>>>>>> redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. 
>>>>>>>> They created a new definition of what a set was, and then showed 
>>>>>>>> what that implies, since by changing the definitions, all the 
>>>>>>>> old work of set theory has to be thrown out, and then we see 
>>>>>>>> what can be established.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None of this is changing any more rules. All
>>>>>>> of these are the effects of the change of the
>>>>>>> definition of a set.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could do as 
>>>>>> basic operations ON a set.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, that 
>>>>>> ZFC is built on first-order logic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set can 
>>>>>> not be a member of itself, and that we can count the members of a 
>>>>>> set.
>>>>>>
>>>>> This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox.
>>>>> If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change
>>>>> or was not required to defeat RP.
>>>>
>>>> but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, they needed to define 
>>>> the full set.
>>>>
>>>> I think you problem is you just don't understand how formal logic 
>>>> works.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think at a higher level of abstraction.
>>
>> No, you don't, unless you mean by that not bothering to make sure the 
>> details work.
>>
>> You can't do fundamental logic in the abstract.
>>
>> That is just called fluff and bluster.
>>
>>>
>>> All that they did is just like I said they redefined
>>> what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of details of
>>> how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement
>>> saying that all they did is redefine a set.
>>
>> Showing the sort of thing YOU need to do to redefine logic
>>
>>
> 
> I said that ZFC redefined the notion of a set to get rid of RP.
> You show the steps of how ZFC redefined a set as your rebuttal.

No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is just a LIE.

They developed a full formal system.

The fact you don't undertstand what that means puts you are a great 
handicap.

> 
>>>
>>> My redefinition of formal system does this exact same
>>> sort of thing in the same way. I do change the term
>>> {logical operation} to {truth preserving operation}.
>>> Other than that the only thing that is changed is
>>> the notion of {formal system}. I don't even change
>>> this very much.
>>>
>>
>> Then where is your paper showing what comes out of your ideas?
>>
> 
> No sentence writing a paper when everyone assumes
> that all of the details are wrong before I ever say them.

The problem is you have been trying to argue in an existing system, 
where right and wrong HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED, and claiming things that are 
just wrong by the rules of that system.

Create you own system, and be clear you are doing so, and clearly 
specify the rules of the system, and no one CAN say your defined rules 
are "wrong", as you defined the rules of the system.

At worse, people can use the rules that you defined to show that your 
system leads to contradictions, and thus isn't useful.

But, if you do this, then YOU need to do the work to show your system is 
useful, and better than the existing one.

That existing set theory was shown to have a fundamental problem made it 
easier for Z/F to show the value of a WORKING set theory.

In your case, you may need to first show the actual problem with the 
existing Computation Theory that actually matters to people. The fact 
that some problems are non-computable isn't considered an issue, or the 
fact that logic system are incomplete because some truths are unprovable.

People gladly give up those properties for system that can handle the 
higher power logic that generates those "problems".

> 
>> So, you change the term, and thus EMPTY the system of proved results.
>>
>> What have you done to refill it?
>>
>> Sounds like you have an architectural sketch of a building, and are 
>> asking people to buy units and move in.
>>
>> Nope, doesn't work that way, you need to build the system first, not 
>> just have a rough sketch of what you think it should look like.
>>
>>
>> Seems like you are just being a scammer.
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========