Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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 14:08:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 129
Message-ID: <v44ujh$3m841$6@dont-email.me>
References: <v44i60$3jnc8$1@dont-email.me> <v44o5t$3l9t2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v44r29$3egpa$5@i2pn2.org> <v44rd0$3m841$2@dont-email.me>
 <v44sa5$3egpa$10@i2pn2.org> <v44suh$3m841$4@dont-email.me>
 <v44toi$3egp9$13@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 21:08:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f8e472f6a5ded880f3c8d2cedf42e75a";
	logging-data="3874945"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/U8qDv1uGLvvzcm86aN7c1"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aseoGKczWN0uTfkenyfMR+YWNjU=
In-Reply-To: <v44toi$3egp9$13@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5940

On 6/9/2024 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/9/24 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2024 1:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/9/24 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 10:36 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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}.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that truthmaker and truthbearer are fully anchored it is easy 
>>>>>> to see
>>>>>> that self-contradictory expressions are simply not truthbearers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “This sentence is not true” can't be true because that would make it
>>>>>> untrue and it can't be false because that would make it true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Within the the definition of truthmaker specified above: “this 
>>>>>> sentence
>>>>>> has no truthmaker” is simply not a truthbearer. It can't be true 
>>>>>> within
>>>>>> the above specified definition of truthmaker because this would 
>>>>>> make it
>>>>>> false. It can't be false because that makes
>>>>>> it true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless the system is inconsistent, in which case they can be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note,
>>>>
>>>> When I specify the ultimate foundation of all truth then this
>>>> does apply to truth in logic, truth in math and truth in science.
>>>
>>> Nope. Not for Formal system, which have a specific definition of its 
>>> truth-makers, unless you let your definition become trivial for 
>>> Formal logic where a "truth-makers" is what has been defined to be 
>>> the "truth-makers" for the system.
>>>
>>
>> Formal systems are free to define their own truthmakers.
>> When these definitions result in inconsistency they are
>> proved to be incorrect.
> 
> So, you admit that your definition is just inconsistant, as it says FOR 
> ALL and then you admit it isn't FOR ALL
> 
> And a formal system proven inconsistant isn't necessarily incorrect, 
> just inconsistent.
> 

To the extent that they define inconsistency they
are not truth-makers.

> Note, some Formal Logic system specifically DEFINE how to handle 
> inconsistant statements (typically uses a non-binary logic system, which 
> makes the term "inconsistant" somewhat of a poorly defined term).
> 

If they do not reject inconsistent axioms then they are wrong.

>>
>>>>
>>>> *Three laws of logic apply to all propositions*
>>>> ¬(p ∧ ¬p) Law of non-contradiction
>>>>   (p ∨ ¬p) Law of excluded middle
>>>>    p = p   Law of identity
>>>
>>> Nope, only for systems that accept those requirements.
>>>
>>> There are (typically non-binary) systems that do not include one or 
>>> both of the first two "laws".
>>>
>>
>> I personally construe those as nonsense.
>> True, False and not a truth-bearer are the only ones
>> that I consider correct.
>>
> 
> 
> So, you admit that you logic system isn't the classical binary system, 
> and thus not applicable for most classical logic based on binary logic, 
> and that you mind is just unimaginative enough to handle broader systems 
> of logic.
> 

Classic logic makes sure to ignore that some expressions
of language are not truth-bearers.

> I guess you just admitted that your definiton of 

I defined the foundation of ALL truth, when logic diverges
from this then logic is incorrect.

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.

> a "Foundation of Logic" 
> has just defined yourself out of all the fields you want to talk about, 
> since they do NOT have the logic value of "not a truth-bearer".
> 
> 

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