Path: ...!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: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 15:48:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 136
Message-ID: <v6cajn$3uu9o$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>
 <v69pca$3eq6r$1@dont-email.me>
 <7e4f146addad55792c0f18ab92d2092ebcc5dbfd@i2pn2.org>
 <v69scb$3fc2r$1@dont-email.me>
 <6e51f0e94c1e00fcaec8897b4374547bfa2d2be1@i2pn2.org>
 <v6aeup$3lj41$1@dont-email.me>
 <b47ba0b985bb7a89548bd47c0f86d8693241f892@i2pn2.org>
 <v6c0lk$3skuk$3@dont-email.me>
 <e474b5f0ed67e56f6da43e7c0deb62c76342933a@i2pn2.org>
 <v6c2td$3skuk$4@dont-email.me>
 <51aecdca646d067438e9cd44b11cb8bf9be933f2@i2pn2.org>
 <v6c69s$3u2mj$2@dont-email.me>
 <ffea314eb0c48ef1c7c52e41bbe5e596252363c9@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2024 22:48:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1569906ca87652a7e8ed8fdc0709863c";
	logging-data="4159800"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tCgHzhC3FzBcJXlYCCjsO"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5bsZOUUGksr/OXhmgqq0JwGto2s=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ffea314eb0c48ef1c7c52e41bbe5e596252363c9@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7114

On 7/6/2024 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/6/24 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> You have ignored my reference to a book that was classified
>> by the Library of Congress as possibly true that says anyone
>> reading this book *is* the one and only creator of the universe.
> 
> The Library of Congress makes no such determinations. The authors 
> provide the classifications.
> 

What is your source of this, I found a source that seem to conflict.
https://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/lcc/PDFs%20of%20slides/12-3%20handout.pdf

> The fact that such a statement is a logical impossiblity if one accepts 
> that there is a shared reality (as that realith existed before the 
> reader did) makes it absurd.
> 

Yes and when one accept that numbers do not exist it
logically follows that there is no such thing as arithmetic.

>>
>> *Anyone seeking the truth cannot simply ignore that*
>> You have not seen this actual book, yet I have several copies.
> 
> You would, and it fits in your pattern of logic.
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>>> comes time for the judgement of your life, you will be found 
>>>>> lacking in the faith needed to redeam you from your failings, and 
>>>>> thus spend your eternity seperated from him, in the place, best 
>>>>> described in human terms, as the eternal fires of Hell.
>>>>>
>>>> Faith is not the same thing as the mere presumption that
>>>> beliefs often are. Faith is the substance of things hoped for
>>>> not the presumption that we are correct thus others are wrong.
>>>
>>> Right, but since you do not have a faith in the actual creator of the 
>>> universe, you are unable to avail yourself of his grace to let you 
>>> have the relationship you need with him, so will forever be outside 
>>> of him.
>>>
>>> You may not belevie that now, but if you honestly look at the outcome 
>>> of your beliefs and your life, you should be able to see that they 
>>> don't have any better foundation. I KNOW that what I believe is true, 
>>> because I have put it to the test, and he has proven himself faithful.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you are not convinced, which is the more likely origin of the 
>>>>> world, and which decision has the more impact on what you should do.
>>>>>
>>>> I am testing the hypothesis that I was deceived by Satan.
>>>>
>>>> Every translation of the bible agrees that God himself would
>>>> be this deceiver.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to 
>>>> believe what is false,
>>>> https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Thessalonians%202:11
>>>
>>> Read the context. Man because of our sin, can not directly see God at 
>>> work.
>>>
>>
>> That the bible says God himself would send a delusion cannot
>> possibly have any context where God himself is not a deceiver.
>> That every translation agrees is strong evidence that it is not
>> a translation error.
> 
> But if you look at the context, the delusion is the delusion created by 
> ones own denial of the law of God, so he sends them what they wanted, by 
> their own choice, so God is not "a deceiver" but only allows people who 
> have chosen to be decieved to be deceived.
> 

He has abolished the law with its commandments and
ordinances, so that he might create in himself one
new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace,
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A15&version=NRSVA

>>
>>>>
>>>> I have ALWAYS only wanted what-ever the truth turns out to be
>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>
>>> But you ignore that truth when it shows itself to you.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> *THE TRUTH OF THIS SEEMS INFALLIBLY CORRECT*
>>>> That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
>>>> its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
>>>> truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using language}
>>>> is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
>>>> using formal language and formalized natural language.
>>>>
>>>> *Meaning that all of math and logic that disagrees are WRONG*
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, that is just your own deception. The human use of language just 
>>> isn't that good and has flaws in it.
>>>
>> My system does not get stuck like the Tarski system.
>> As you already know there cannot possibly be any sequence
>> of truth preserving operations to LP or ~LP proves that
>> my system overcomes Tarski's proof.
> 
> So, what is the value of True(L, x) where x in L is the statement
> ~True(L,x)
> 

This is simply the Prolog model where true
means provable and false means not provable.
Conventional false means ~x is provable.

True(L,x)  only when  x is true, otherwise false.
True(L,~x) only when ~x is true, otherwise false.

x = ~True(L, x)
True(L, x) is false.
True(L, ~x) is false.

?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.


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