Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_G=C3=B6del=27s_Basic_Logic_Course_at_Notre_Dame_=28?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?Was=3A_Analytic_Truth-makers=29?=
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 19:18:09 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <v7ph81$1dv95$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v7m26d$nrr4$1@dont-email.me>
 <e41a2d324173031e1fe47acc0fd69b94b7aba55e@i2pn2.org>
 <v7msg0$sepk$1@dont-email.me>
 <3fb77583036a3c8b0db4b77610fb4bf4214c9c23@i2pn2.org>
 <v7much$sepk$2@dont-email.me>
 <9577ce80fd6c8a3d5dc37b880ce35a4d10d12a0e@i2pn2.org>
 <v7n3ho$t590$1@dont-email.me>
 <7d9b88425623e1166e358f1bce4c3a2767c36da0@i2pn2.org>
 <v7naae$120r5$1@dont-email.me> <v7o64d$7r0l$1@solani.org>
 <v7ogdr$17h8r$9@dont-email.me> <v7p499$8bb2$5@solani.org>
 <v7p4mt$8bl4$1@solani.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 02:18:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="16ed067bd5cc70aacf71dd1f4de1f69e";
	logging-data="1506597"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX183v71Rozyc5j0T3Oi6I9lz"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VWebEZHzHkHthIjaWpI0becU7T8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v7p4mt$8bl4$1@solani.org>
Bytes: 3241

On 7/23/2024 3:44 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
> Of course you can restrict yourself to
> only so called "decidable" sentences A,
> 
> i.e. sentences A where:
> 
> True(L,A) v True(L,~A)
> 
> But this doesn't mean that all sentences
> are decidable, if the language allows for
> example at least one propositional variables p,
> 
> then you have aleady an example of an
> undecidable sentences, you even don't
> need anything Gödel, Russell, or who knows
> 
> what, all you need is bivalence, which was
> already postualated by Aristoteles.
> 
> Principle of bivalence
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_bivalence
> 
> if you assume that a propostional variable
> is "variably", meaning it can take different truth
> values depending on different possible worlds,
> 
> or state of affairs, or valuations, or how ever
> you want to call it. Then a propositional variable
> is the prime example of an undecided sentence.
> 

The key difference is that we no long use the misnomer
"undecidable" sentence and instead call it for what it
really is an expression that is not a truth bearer, or
proposition in L.

> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Thats a little bit odd to abolish incompletness.
>> Take p, an arbitrary propositional variable.
>> Its neither the case that:
>>
>> True(L,p)
>>
>> Nor is ihe case that:
>>
>> True(L,~p)
>>
>> Because there are always at least two possible worlds.
>> One possible world where p is false, making True(L,p)
>> impossible, and one possible world where p is true,
>>
>> making True(L,~p) impossible.

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