Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning
Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 17:56:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 169
Message-ID: <v1rhff$31ege$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@dont-email.me> <v1mnuj$lbo5$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v1mp1l$1qr5e$4@dont-email.me> <v1mpsh$lbo4$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v1ms2o$1rkit$1@dont-email.me> <v1prtb$2jtsh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1qjb1$2ouob$2@dont-email.me> <v1qnfv$2q0t7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1qtnk$2rdui$2@dont-email.me> <v1qvku$qvg3$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v1r0fg$2rva6$1@dont-email.me> <v1r1ci$qvg3$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v1r276$2shtf$1@dont-email.me> <v1r932$qvg3$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v1rdr5$30gkq$1@dont-email.me> <v1rggn$qvg3$11@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 00:56:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="822a7b45c10435b9354ed3bfb60d5b64";
	logging-data="3193358"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19E9RU4KcgY3FgmLqQKjx6P"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:F8H+mlDB208ldn4JGmfq3lMlK2I=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1rggn$qvg3$11@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 8333

On 5/12/2024 5:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/12/24 5:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/12/2024 3:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/12/24 2:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2024 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when applied to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Formal Systems are the axioms of the system and the most 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep 
>>>>>>>>>>> understanding. Only
>>>>>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that 
>>>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in relations 
>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) and some
>>>>>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to these 
>>>>>>>>>> axioms.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about 
>>>>>>>>> uninterpreted
>>>>>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms are 
>>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations and 
>>>>>>>>> false in
>>>>>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no 
>>>>>>>>> interpretation
>>>>>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken of. I am
>>>>>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual philosophical
>>>>>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which means you need to be VERY clear about what you claim to be 
>>>>>>> "usually spoken of" and what is your unique contribution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You then need to show how your contribution isn't in conflict 
>>>>>>> with the classical parts, but follows within its definitions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to say that something in the classical theory is not 
>>>>>>> actually true, then you need to show how removing that piece 
>>>>>>> doesn't affect the system. This seems to be a weak point of 
>>>>>>> yours, you think you can change a system, and not show that the 
>>>>>>> system can still exist as it was.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:
>>>>>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean
>>>>>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving operations
>>>>>>>> to these finite string.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms. It is not
>>>>>>>> exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of inference
>>>>>>>> steps may sometimes be required. It is also not exactly the same
>>>>>>>> because some proofs are not restricted to truth preserving 
>>>>>>>> operations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, what effect does that difference have?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem here to accept that some truths are based on an infinite 
>>>>>>> sequence of operations, while you admit that proofs are finite 
>>>>>>> sequences, but it seems you still assert that all truths must be 
>>>>>>> provable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not use the term "provable" or "proofs" these only apply to
>>>>>> finite sequences. {derived from applying truth preserving operations}
>>>>>> can involve infinite sequences.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if true can come out of an infinite sequences, and some need 
>>>>> such an infinite sequence, but proof requires a finite sequence, 
>>>>> that shows that there will exists some statements are true, but not 
>>>>> provable.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a 
>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we look at the way that {true on the basis of meaning}
>>>>>> actually works, then all epistemological antinomies are simply 
>>>>>> untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>> And Godel would agree to that. You just don't understand what that 
>>>>> line 14 means.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It can be proven in a finite sequence of steps that
>>>> epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So?
>>>
>>
>> So that directly contradicts what Gödel said in the quote thus proving
>> that Gödel and Tarski were both fundamentally incorrect in the basic
>> foundation of their work.
>>
> 
> Where does he say wha tyo claim?
> 
> He says that it can be *USED* for a similar proof.
> 

*IT CANNOT BE USED IN ANY UNDECIDABILITY PROOF HE IS CLUELESS*
*IT CANNOT BE USED IN ANY UNDECIDABILITY PROOF HE IS CLUELESS*
*IT CANNOT BE USED IN ANY UNDECIDABILITY PROOF HE IS CLUELESS*
*IT CANNOT BE USED IN ANY UNDECIDABILITY PROOF HE IS CLUELESS*


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer