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
Subject: Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 16:42:34 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 164
Message-ID: <v69pca$3eq6r$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.org> <v676rf$2u7lu$1@dont-email.me>
 <v67i45$6keq$1@solani.org> <v67j9a$2vtu0$2@dont-email.me>
 <v67jvc$6l2j$1@solani.org> <v67mbp$349l4$1@dont-email.me>
 <4394939716c6c6d2ed1fa9b5a269ed261768914e@i2pn2.org>
 <v67ono$34d9q$1@dont-email.me>
 <ba31e5eebae5a2b987f1ff1ec5886f00f59dc3b5@i2pn2.org>
 <v69b2t$3chpq$1@dont-email.me>
 <5e4fb6d29fbd03c807c9a8d4140f807a44c29cb9@i2pn2.org>
 <v69k46$3duna$1@dont-email.me>
 <49291bd9f18eaf11097b6a26f062f54b7f4d6fa9@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2024 23:42:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f325a973008a37eaa6ec545239278e3d";
	logging-data="3631323"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19NPGIf4yJqgNbPyl8jSdEq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TpzygJwc2bSiW9lsHw73YuyYD8s=
In-Reply-To: <49291bd9f18eaf11097b6a26f062f54b7f4d6fa9@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7167

On 7/5/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/5/24 4:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/5/2024 2:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/5/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Every expression such that neither X nor ~X is provable in L
>>>> is simply not a truth bearer in L. This does correctly reject
>>>> self-contradictory expressions that wold otherwise be interpreted
>>>> as the incompleteness of L.
>>>
>>> FALSE STATEMENT.
>>>
>>
>> Can't be false it is stipulated.
> 
> Can't stipulate that something is true.
> 

That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its verbal meaning} must have a connection by truth preserving
operations to its {verbal meaning} is a tautology.

Sometimes in cases (having little actual consequence) this
may require an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.

> Also, stipulating a definition contrary to the system puts you out of 
> the system.
> 
>>
>>> Some statements are true due to an infinite number of steps to ther 
>>> truth-makers of the system.
>>>
>>
>> Already covered that.
> 
> Nope. That is just stipulating that you system is contradictory.
> 
>>
>>> You will lead your logic system into contradictions by your 
>>> definition (or you just need to treat it as a worthless phrase that 
>>> doesn't actually tell you anything, particually what you call 
>>> non-truth-bearers, which might actuall be statement that are true or 
>>> false).
>>>
>>
>> Not at all. Such a system does detect and reject self-contradictory
>> expressions thus does not use this as any basis for incompleteness.
> 
> Nope, it just puts your logic outside of most logic systems, and unable 
> to hamdle most of the problems people really care about.
> 

Right people really care about the Goldbach conjecture
infinite more than avoiding Fascism or the death of
the planet.

>>
>>>>
>>>> This works correctly for every element of the accurate verbal
>>>> model of the actual world. Since we can see that things like
>>>> the Goldbach conjecture can be proven *OR REFUTED* in an infinite
>>>> sequence then an algorithm can see this too. For everything
>>>> else it is an infallibly correct system of reasoning.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you ADMIT that you definition doesn't work for some statements, 
>>> and thus is not correct.
>>>
>>
>> It detects expressions that require infinite steps as out
>> of scope and correctly determines all of the rest.
> 
> Nope, it defines your system as self-contradictory, 

That is not even what those words mean.

> as things like tht 
> GoldBach conjecture are defined as BOTH non-truth-bearers, and as 
> truth-bearers.
> 
> That seems to be the lie for your logic, that you just allow yourself to 
> be wrong at times, which makes your logic worthless.
> 
>>
>>> Note, the algorithm can not tell wether the statement like to 
>>> Goldback conjecture is true or not, or even if it takes an infinite 
>>> number of steps to come to that answer. Thus, you statement is just a 
>>> FALSEHOOD.
>>>
>> Not at all. Because it is dead obvious to humans that Goldbach
>> can be proved or refuted in an infinite number of steps an
>> algorithm can see this too.
> 
> But it might not need an infinite number of steps to refute it.
> 
That my system handles all knowledge that can be expressed
using language is enough.

> And that second definition contradicts your first, as the first defines 
> Goldmach (if true) to be a non-truth-bearer, while the second tries to 
> contradict that to say it is.
> 
That is not even what those words mean.

> You can't do that in two different statements.
> 
>>
>>> You just don't understand logic well enough to understand that can't 
>>> have definitions that just don't work as the basis of a system.
>>>
>>> By your definition, the Goldbach conjecture must currently be 
>>> consider a non-truth-bearer, but we KNOW that it must be either true 
>>> or false, we 
>>
>> It would be construed as out-of-scope.
>> Whether or not there was evidence of:
>> (a) Election fraud that could have possibly changed
>> the outcome of the 2020 presidential election or
>> (b) Very harmful climate change caused by humans
>> would be in scope.
> 
> Since both of those statements are based on EMPERICAL evidence, they are 
> outside the scope of analytical logic.
> 

An accurate model of the actual world already has
them encoded in language.

>>
>>> just don't know which, so you definition of a truth-bearer is just a 
>>> lie.
>>>
>>> What you are defining are KNOWLEDGE bearers, statements that there 
>>> truth can be known. 
>>
>> The key problem that it solves is that it makes True(L,x)
>> computable for all of the most important things that really
>> matter.
> 
> Nope, becuase you made you system inconsistent by defining infinitly 
> established truths to be both non-truth-bearers and truth-bearers.
> 

out-of-scope is not at all the same thing as inconsistent.

>>
>> You are essentially saying that
>> A cure for cancer is totally useless because it only cures
>> 99.99% of cancers.
> 
> Nope, but it can't be said to be a cure for ALL cancers.
> 
It can handle ALL knowledge that can be expressed using language.

> That is where you run into the problem, trying to say that things that 
> must be correct for ALL inputs, are allowed to only be correct for many 
> inputs.
> 
The entire set of knowledge that can be expressed using language.

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