Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<v4fdis$2d2bf$1@dont-email.me>

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: Truthmaker Maximalism and undecidable decision problems
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:29:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v44sa5$3egpa$10@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:29:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3621674"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v44rd0$3m841$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4058
Lines: 76

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.

> 
> *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 am not sure about the third, while I can't think of a system that 
doesn't have the law of identity, I am not sure it is absoultely required.

(after a bit of research)

In Schrödinger logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_logic
the law of identity is greatly restricted, because the statement x = y 
is not a well-formed formula in many cases, so it might not be true that 
x = x
> 
> Inconsistent systems cannot be truthmakers
> in those cases where they derive inconsistency.
> 

Illogical.

"inconsistent SYSTEMS" are not the same sort of thing as a "truth-maker" 
as the first is a system of logic, and the second is a statement 
expressed in such a system.