Path: ...!news.nobody.at!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_G=c3=b6del's_Basic_Logic_Course_at_Notre_Dame_=28Was:?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_Analytic_Truth-makers=29?=
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 23:54:19 +0200
Message-ID: <v7rt6b$9vte$2@solani.org>
References: <v7m26d$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> <v7ph81$1dv95$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7roel$9t9k$1@solani.org> <v7rp4t$1sv5t$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 21:54:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
	logging-data="327598"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YBdn6pUL28LAauo+i+UdH8aQqig=
X-User-ID: eJwFwQkBwDAIA0BLQCG0csYT/xJ2FweKTkfAg0E6eK6aikzlKXF7U15NaF4X7enECO3Ffsm8srQC1010/QdFMxVY
In-Reply-To: <v7rp4t$1sv5t$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3888
Lines: 75

But obviously sometimes sentences are
decidable, and sometimes not. Since
this depends on "True" and "L".

Actually modern logic does it much simpler,
you don't need to prescribe or explain what
a "True" and "L" does, in that you repeat

nonsense like for example:

 > A truth maker is any sequence of truth preserving operations
 > that links an expression x of language L to its semantic meaning
 > in language L. The lack of such a connection in L to x or ~x
 > means that x is not a truth-bearer in L.

Its much much easier to define a "logic".
You just take a language of sentences S.
And define a "logic" L as a subset of S.

You can imagine that L was defined as follows:

L := { A e S | True(L, A) }

But this is not necessarely the case how L is
conceived, or how L comes into being.

So a logic L is just a set of sentences. You
don't need the notion truth maker or truth bearer
at all, all you need to say you have some L ⊆ S.

You can then study such L's. For example:
- classical logic
- intuitionistic logic
- etc..

olcott schrieb:
> On 7/24/2024 3:33 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
>> But truth bearer has another meaning.
>> The more correct terminology is anyway
>> truth maker, you have to shift away the
>>
>> focus from the formula and think it is
>> a truth bearer, this is anyway wrong,
>> since you have two additional parameters
>> your "True" and your language "L".
>>
>> So all that we see here in expression such as:
>>
>> [~] True(L, [~] A)
>>
>> Is truth making, and not truth bearing.
>> In recent years truth making has received
>> some attention, there are interesting papers
>> concerning truth makers. And it has
>>
>> even a SEP article:
>>
>> Truthmakers
>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthmakers/
>>
>> A world of truthmakers?
>> https://philipp.philosophie.ch/handouts/2005-5-5-truthmakers.pdf
>>
>> olcott schrieb:
>>
>>> 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.
> 
> A truth-bearer is any expression of language that can
> be true or false. Self-contradictory expressions are not
> truth bearers.
> 
>