Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 22:42:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <v6d2r0$6cgn$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v67685$6fr5$1@solani.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>
 <v6cajn$3uu9o$1@dont-email.me>
 <e25eac30415eb75101e6e8af05c3a40d6ea8dbda@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cf9d$3viun$3@dont-email.me>
 <f22abb5f17f657bd1122de3c6339beadf4fb3e8f@i2pn2.org>
 <v6ch6a$13k$2@dont-email.me>
 <4ce79acf7c53160136f77603265cc1e5a5d3e34e@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cpnc$1b3m$2@dont-email.me>
 <9e59212316a9b258e95a1de7f5cca46fee37861e@i2pn2.org>
 <v6csla$1otr$2@dont-email.me>
 <3f12eb90be522441c8b95d17d25767fcaf72ed2d@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cvqs$5vir$2@dont-email.me>
 <efced1648cf7ddc1c257d7c4369add3b391dd005@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2024 05:42:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9c29ee80738061e83f912864b4700212";
	logging-data="209431"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/bKHylpxySkWkHpAmqSnwO"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8EVCnLm6oGEsbFn1Nwq9e4PV3L8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <efced1648cf7ddc1c257d7c4369add3b391dd005@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6321

On 7/6/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/6/24 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/6/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/6/24 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/6/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/6/24 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/6/2024 6:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/6/24 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2024 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The problem here is you logic doesn't actually allow for the 
>>>>>>>>>>> necessaery references in it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. My logic is simply smart enough to reject
>>>>>>>>>> non-truth-bearers AKA expressions that are not valid
>>>>>>>>>> propositions. It does not stupidly falsely assume that
>>>>>>>>>> every expression is a valid proposition.\
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Logic isn't "Smart", it follows its rules.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your rules are just inconsistent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When-so-ever true means provable and false means not provable
>>>>>>>> the meaning of these words proves that such a system cannot
>>>>>>>> get stuck in pathological expressions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And such a definition requires the system to be keep simple or it 
>>>>>>> becomes inconsistant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LP := ~True(LP) has a cycle in the directed
>>>>>>>> graph of the elements of the expression related
>>>>>>>> to each other that Prolog and MTT detects.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, what value does True(LP) return?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True(L,x)  means x is true.
>>>>>> ~True(L,x) means x is untrue which includes false and not a 
>>>>>> proposition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True(L,~x) means x is false.
>>>>>> ~True(L,~x) means x is unfalse which includes true and not a 
>>>>>> proposition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True(L,LP) is false and True(L,~LP) is false which means LP
>>>>>> is not a proposition.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if x is defined in L as ~True(L,x) means that True(L, x) is 
>>>>> false, then x being the negation of that result is a true statement.
>>>>>
>>>> *That is not the way it works in my system or Prolog*
>>>> ~True(L, x)  means x is either false or not a proposition
>>>> ~True(L, ~x) means x is either true or not a proposition
>>>>
>>>> Try reading those two lines 150 more times and maybe it will
>>>> break through your ADD. Alternatively you are simply a liar.
>>>>
>>>> It is something like trivalent logic {true, false, incorrect}
>>>> ~true is false or incorrect.
>>>> ~false is true or incorrect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So if x is defined in L as ~True(L, x)
>>>
>>> what value does True(L, x) have?
>>>
>>
>> then True(L,x) evaluates to false ultimately meaning
>> that x is incorrect.
> 
> But doesn't ~false evaluate to True?
> 

No. ~false evaluates to true or incorrect.

>>
>> We can't know for sure that x is incorrect until
>> we see that True(L,~x) also evaluates to false.
>>
> 
> And thus you system just blew up in a mass of flaming inconsistancy.
> 

Is "a fish" true, false or not a proposition.

> Since there is no requirement to check True(L, ~x) and it can't affect 
> the value of ~True(L, x) you logic just doesn't work.
> 
When x is defined to mean = ~True(L,x) in L
then True(L,x) is false and True(L,~x) is false
proving that x is not a proposition.

Is it really that hard to see that "a fish" is
not a proposition?

> You need to go back and study how logic works, but my guess is you have 
> wasted too much time on your other projects to do anything with this, 
> and you have poisioned you reputation with all you lies so no one is 
> going to look at this.
> 
Try and show how "a fish" is true or false.

> Pity, if you spent the last 20 year looking at this and seeing if you 
> can work out the problems, it might have made an viable alternate form 
> of logic, but we will never know since you killed it by lying about 
> halting and incompleteness and Tarski.

I did and it really seems that you are flat out lying about it.
It seems that you are trying to say that "a fish" must be true or false.

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