Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <v1ul1s$v37v$17@i2pn2.org>
Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<v1ul1s$v37v$17@i2pn2.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

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: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic
 method
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 23:16:12 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v1ul1s$v37v$17@i2pn2.org>
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>
 <v1rhff$31ege$1@dont-email.me> <v1rhqr$qvg2$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v1rj05$31n8h$2@dont-email.me> <v1rkt4$qvg2$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v1rlj7$324ln$2@dont-email.me> <v1rn85$qvg3$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v1s25g$38fdl$1@dont-email.me> <v1ssv3$qvg3$15@i2pn2.org>
 <v1ta68$3hc9t$1@dont-email.me> <v1ub9v$v37v$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v1ugp1$3tnr6$1@dont-email.me> <v1uie1$v37v$16@i2pn2.org>
 <v1ujff$3uaee$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 03:16:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1019135"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v1ujff$3uaee$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 16991
Lines: 342

On 5/13/24 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/2024 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/24 11:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 7:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 8:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========