Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.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: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:48:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <v44tdv$3m841$5@dont-email.me>
References: <v44i60$3jnc8$1@dont-email.me> <v44r28$3egpa$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v44r6c$3m841$1@dont-email.me> <v44sdg$3egp9$12@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 20:48:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f8e472f6a5ded880f3c8d2cedf42e75a";
	logging-data="3874945"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+OTogbYGt1JtNNbG6nZybL"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:z3UcYSGNviKuLMWxX2Z2+9Fi2cY=
In-Reply-To: <v44sdg$3egp9$12@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3357

On 6/9/2024 1:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/9/24 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/9/24 11:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> *This has direct application to undecidable decision problems*
>>>>
>>>> When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer is
>>>> whatever makes an expression of language true <is> its truthmaker. This
>>>> entails that if there is nothing in the universe that makes 
>>>> expression X
>>>> true then X lacks a truthmaker and is untrue.
>>>
>>> I guess you don't understand Formal Logic then.
>>>
>>> If Formal logic, the logic system starts with an explicit listing of 
>>> statements and definitions that are considered "True" and logical 
>>> operations that are considered VALID.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> X may be untrue because X is false. In that case ~X has a truthmaker.
>>>> Now we have the means to unequivocally define truth-bearer. X is a
>>>> truth-bearer iff (if and only if) X or ~X has a truthmaker.
>>>>
>>>> I have been working in this same area as a non-academician for a few
>>>> years. I have only focused on expressions of language that are {true on
>>>> the basis of their meaning}.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which seems to mean you have focused on general Philosophy, and NOT 
>>> formal logic, which has a much broader definition of "truth", and 
>>> thus room to argue it.
>>
>> When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then this
>> does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in science.
>>
> 
> Except that such a foundation only applies to logics built on that 
> foundation.
> 

Clearly you do not comprehend the term:
The actual {ultimate foundation of all truth}.

Nonsense systems can be created where
2 + 3 = "I fell down and hurt my knee."

For the actual correct notion of an expression
of language with the property of {True} something
making it true is required or it is untrue.

We can stipulate a term-of-the-art where "True(x)"
means a bucket of rusted bolts sitting in our front
yard. That has no effect what-so-ever on actual {True}.

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