Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 11:13:44 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <v977fo$gsru$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me> <v8a4vf$uhll$1@dont-email.me> <v8aqh7$11ivs$1@dont-email.me> <v8cr4g$1gk19$1@dont-email.me> <v8dinp$1kii7$1@dont-email.me> <v8hv72$2mmsq$1@dont-email.me> <v8iisj$2qetj$1@dont-email.me> <v8kuhb$3d5q8$1@dont-email.me> <v8lc7p$3f6vr$2@dont-email.me> <v8naa8$3uo7s$1@dont-email.me> <v8nqo7$1n09$1@dont-email.me> <v8sm9o$1gk42$1@dont-email.me> <v8t2fl$1ilg6$2@dont-email.me> <v8v97m$2cofk$1@dont-email.me> <v8vusp$32fso$16@dont-email.me> <v91p95$3ppav$1@dont-email.me> <v92q4f$37e9$1@dont-email.me> <v94l1p$ldq7$1@dont-email.me> <v95c2j$p5rb$4@dont-email.me> <v95cke$p5rb$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 10:13:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a5c6a761e1a568dd548fea8baecc84eb";
	logging-data="553854"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX190DeyrSz6aGoPfGAGh/ih9"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sIJlYbS+nQ6LG9HhJLq70pjtaGY=
Bytes: 3364

On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:

> On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding
>>>> how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works.
>>> 
>>> What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself,
>>> would be relevant to Quine's topic?
>>> 
>> 
>> He mentions it 98 times in his paper
>> https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
>> I haven't looked at it in years.
>> 
>>>> I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that matters
>>>> to me is that I have defined expressions of language that are
>>>> {true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language}
>>>> so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points.
>>> 
>>> That does not justify lying.
>>> 
>> 
>> I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
>> It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
>> topic with any distraction that you can find.
>> 
>> Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
>> anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
>> distinction.
>> 
> 
> Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
> anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
> distinction.
> 
> This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the
> expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker.

No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of existence of an
algrithm makes something computable. You  can't compute if you con't
know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm.

-- 
Mikko