Path: ...!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 07:11:19 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <v9nfl7$1dvef$4@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> <v9nbjf$1dj8q$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ndv6$1dvpg$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 14:11:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0832828dca420f70d701da47ce3141da";
	logging-data="1506767"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19deaH67ZTV40RRHdpD4vEC"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kyeNpOYSVHTZxlcCZ7LqWnkdwgo=
In-Reply-To: <v9ndv6$1dvpg$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6833

On 8/16/2024 6:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-08-16 11:02:07 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> No, it does not. In every consisten system has some x that is
> untrue in the above sense. That does not make the negation of
> x true in the same sense. 

Whenever there is no sequence of truth preserving from
x or ~x to its meaning in L of F then x has no truth-maker
in F and x not a truth-bearer in F. We never get to x is
undecidable in F.

> Thus there can be a sentence that
> is untrue (in the above sense) and is the negation of an untrue
> sentence (in the above sense). Existence of such sentences makes
> the notion of undecidability meaningful and useful. A particular
> example of the usefulness is that it makes easier to ask about
> any particular F whether there are undecidable sentences.
> 
> Whether "undecidable" is a good vernacular term for the notion
> is another problem.
> 


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