Path: ...!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 21:47:07 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <v45pfb$3ph0$1@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> <v44ujh$3m841$6@dont-email.me>
 <v4508h$3egpa$11@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 04:47:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f6820c6f88a6ab7f47362bcc86c8cb3a";
	logging-data="124448"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+qn9f0OgzgcD4dt66tmM5T"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:M+eV7HmoqeQinNEUoDStSFlZtks=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4508h$3egpa$11@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4928

On 6/9/2024 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/9/24 3:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> 
> YOU hae a TYPE ERROR in your statement.
> 
> That just proves that YOUR logic is incorrect.
> 
> How can a SYSTEM be a propsition?
> 

*Stopping at your first big mistake*

When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer is 
whatever makes an expression of language true <is> its truthmaker.

A cat in your living room is not a proposition yet makes the
sentence: "there is a cat in my living room" true, thus <is> its
truthmaker.

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