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: sci.logic
Subject: Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 06:02:07 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <v9nbjf$1dj8q$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$5@dont-email.me>
 <v977fo$gsru$1@dont-email.me> <v97goj$ielu$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9c93e$35sg6$1@dont-email.me> <v9d3k1$3ajip$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ffpr$3s45o$1@dont-email.me> <v9fkd4$3se8c$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9kg66$tdvb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 13:02:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0832828dca420f70d701da47ce3141da";
	logging-data="1494298"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Dy+5zH7BcEwWplxDVrqGR"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MlDRq6dLqmk3CVsANTfWXrZnPS8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v9kg66$tdvb$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6242

On 8/15/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-08-13 12:43:16 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 8/13/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-08-12 13:44:33 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from
>>>>>> the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal
>>>>>> model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is
>>>>>> how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice to see that you con't disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When the idea that I presented is fully understood
>>>> it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.
>>>
>>> If you can't prove atl least that you have an interesting idea
>>> nobody is going to stody it enough to understood.
>>
>> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition
>> is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
>> without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
> 
> Self-evident propositions are uninteresting.
> 

*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.

>> Thus understanding the compositional meaning of my words is
>> complete proof that they are true.
> 
> Often your intended compositional meanings seem to differ from the
> real compositional meanings as defined by dictionaries, grammar
> books, and native speakers' intuitions.
> 
> Epistemology is not relevant to the clarity communication. Grammar
> of Common Language, including compositional semantics, is.
> 

This is how compositional semantics is formalized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

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