Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v7phm2$1dv95$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Analytic Truth-makers Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 19:25:38 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 47 Message-ID: <v7phm2$1dv95$2@dont-email.me> References: <v7m26d$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> <2a0f9a4235d75dee94ccae62b10d3afef5a966a5@i2pn2.org> <v7og8o$17h8r$8@dont-email.me> <v7p5g1$8c1e$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 02:25:39 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="16ed067bd5cc70aacf71dd1f4de1f69e"; logging-data="1506597"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/psE1Zv1VMuSUTgMhiGk1V" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:muxV/z0Rk9xu4OcX7cnmE7AiPL0= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v7p5g1$8c1e$1@solani.org> Bytes: 2787 On 7/23/2024 3:57 PM, Mild Shock wrote: > Since generations logicians have called sentences > which you clumsily call "not a truth-bearer", > simple called "undecidable" sentences. > That is the same as calling a dead-cow a cow that does not run very fast. It it terribly deceptive to overload terms of the art with meaning having nothing to do with their base meaning. > A theory is incomplete, if it has undecidable > sentences. There is a small difference between > unprovable and undecidable. > If an expression of language is WRONG then we can't correctly blame the system for being incomplete. > An unprovable senetence A is only a sentence with: > > ~True(L, A). > > An undecidable sentence A is a sentence with: > > ~True(L, A) & ~True(L, ~A) > The problem with this is that self-contradictory sentences are WRONG. Blaming the formal system for being "incomplete" is stupid. > Meaning the sentence itself and its complement > are both unprovable. > "This sentence is not true" IS WRONG. > olcott schrieb: >> ~True(L,x) ∧ ~True(L,~x) >> means that x is not a truth-bearer in L. >> It does not mean that L is incomplete -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer