Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:44:26 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4auhq$3nf9m$2@i2pn2.org>
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>
 <v4693h$8jv1$1@dont-email.me> <v473en$ggn5$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:44:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3915062"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v473en$ggn5$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4523
Lines: 94

On 6/10/24 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/10/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-09 18:40:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> A formal system can be inconsistent without being incorrect.
> 
> *Three laws of logic apply to all propositions*

Nope.

There are logicsystem that do not obey these "laws".

You are just ignorant of the breadth of the rules of logic.

> ¬(p ∧ ¬p) Law of non-contradiction
>   (p ∨ ¬p) Law of excluded middle
>    p = p   Law of identity
> *No it cannot*
> 
> People are free to stipulate the value of PI as exactly
> 3.0 and they are simply wrong.
> *Three valued logic is simply not the way that reality really works*

And who says "reality" is what logic is about?

THAT is one of your fundamental errors.

> 
>> If you call something "incorrect" without a proof then it
>> is only an insignificant opinion.
>>
>