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: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable --- truth-bearer
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:26:34 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d898cfbac55a3092a90bfd543ea4b42ed3e451e6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v86olp$5km4$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>
 <d67278caa0b8782725e806b61adf892028f2bf89@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qd2p$1tedb$10@dont-email.me>
 <4d8c7b1c69915ebbe108d7f4e29cf6172eac7759@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qel5$1tedb$13@dont-email.me>
 <43690773dba43c5d93d11635af0a26532e5be390@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qgn7$1tedb$15@dont-email.me> <v9sisj$2bs9m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9slov$2c67u$3@dont-email.me> <v9uusd$2q1fo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9vfh4$2rjt1$10@dont-email.me> <va1p24$3bb53$1@dont-email.me>
 <va26l9$3cvgv$5@dont-email.me>
 <bcbebf04fffc6303a7c7b0c9e40738214b92c22e@i2pn2.org>
 <va4nl9$3s0hu$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 00:26:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3400097"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <va4nl9$3s0hu$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9947
Lines: 208

On 8/21/24 8:47 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/20/2024 9:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/20/24 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/20/2024 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-08-19 12:58:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/19/2024 3:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-08-18 11:26:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/18/2024 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-17 15:47:51 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you consider all the papers they wrote describing 
>>>>>>>>>>>> the effects of their definitions "nothing"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all and you know this.
>>>>>>>>>>> One change had many effects yet was still one change.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But would mean nothing without showing the affects of that 
>>>>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yet again with your imprecise use of words.
>>>>>>>>> When any tiniest portion of the meaning of an expression
>>>>>>>>> has been defined this teeny tiny piece of the definition
>>>>>>>>> makes this expression not pure random gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
>>>>>>>>> an idiom for having zero meaning.
>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are lying. According to that page the word "meaningless"
>>>>>>>> has two meanings. The other is 'having no real importance or 
>>>>>>>> value'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK. I always use the base meaning of a term as its only meaning.
>>>>>>> That makes things much simpler if everyone knows this standard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People have different opions about which meaning is the "base"
>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The most commonly used sense meaning at the first
>>>>> index in the dictionary.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to use this you should say so and specify the dictionary
>>>> in the beginning of your opus. You shold not choose a dictionary
>>>> that presents obsolete and archaic meanings first.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Base meaning as in the meaning in a knowledge ontology
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
>>> basis that all other sense meanings inherit from.
>>>
>>>>>>> For example a liar must be intentionally deceptive not merely 
>>>>>>> mistaken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example people may regard you as a liar if you say something 
>>>>>> untrue
>>>>>> when you were too lazy to check the facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am redefining the foundations of logic thus my definitions
>>>>> are stipulated to override and supersede the original definitions.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to use definitions other that the first meaning given
>>>> by the dictionary, you must present the definition before the
>>>> first use in each opus that uses it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The key term that I am slightly adapting is the term {analytic}
>>> from the analytic synthetic distinction. That is why the
>>> title of this post says Analytic(Olcott)
>>
>> Which, as I pointed out elswhere, basically means you aren't actually 
>> talking about formal systems, as they don't have that distinction, 
>> because there is no sense based truth to be synthetic.
>>
> 
> 
> Formal systems kind of sort of has some vague idea of what True
> means. Tarski "proved" that there is no True(L,x) that can be
> consistently defined.

Right, there is not PREDICATE that always answers if a given statement 
is True.

That doesn't mean that truth doesn't have a definition.

The issue is that sometimes truth is unknowable, and the predicate can't 
handle some of those cases.

> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem#General_form

Which just means we can't create a predicate that TELLS us if a 
statement is true or not.

> 
> *The defined predicate True(L,x) fixed that*

So, what is your value for True(L, x) where x is defined to be the 
expression ~True(L, x)

If for this x, True(L, x) was FALSE, because the predicate determined 
that there was no sequence of truth perserving operations to x, then x, 
being defined as the negation of that value, must be a TRUE, and thus, 
your predicate has ERRED, and gave an answer that it was not actually 
able to establish, as it has said that a TRUE statement could not be es 
shown to be true.

The problem is that the predicate, to exist, must mean that the system 
is Decidable, but if the grammer of the system allows creation of 
undeciable forms, it is stuck. By its definition, the predicate doesn't 
have the option of saying its argument is undecidable, but must decide 
on it, and thus traps itself if the grammer allows for undecidable 
statements, this means it can only exist in system with very restricted 
grammers, and thus systems not suitable for a lot of the work that is 
desired.

> 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 then x is simply
> untrue in F.
> 
> Whenever there is no sequence of truth preserving from
> x or ~x to its meaning in L of F then x has no truth-maker
> in F and x not a truth-bearer in F. We never get to x is
> undecidable in F.	

But then True(F, x) would, by the definition be FALSE.

But if x is itself the expression ~True(F, x), then that makes x true 
and the answer wrong.

So, you system must not allow the expression in its grammer of a 
statement like that.

Not just by its semantics, but in the syntax, as the domain of the 
predicate is expression in the grammer of the language.

> 
>>>
>>>>> It took a long time to reverse-engineer the subtle nuances of
>>>>> the exact details of what needed to be changed.
>>>>
>>>> It seems that you have not yet completed that task.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have competed the architecture of the task.
>>> We cannot move on to further elaboration until
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========