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 16:35:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <v9ogmp$1i745$6@dont-email.me>
References: <v86olp$5km4$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>
 <20b1dea98eda49e74e822c96b37565bb3eb36013@i2pn2.org>
 <v9o4p2$1h5u4$1@dont-email.me>
 <cd12fb81fcd05d2e112fc8aca2f5b791c521cfc9@i2pn2.org>
 <v9oddf$1i745$2@dont-email.me>
 <7f2a1f77084810d4cee18ac3b44251601380b93a@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 23:35:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0832828dca420f70d701da47ce3141da";
	logging-data="1645701"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wE0rWBL9FiK0yYDhvtRIX"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yNwW+Q9qyNfRY9qIZW5ZuPpDF2U=
In-Reply-To: <7f2a1f77084810d4cee18ac3b44251601380b93a@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7588

On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability"
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
>>>> did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are totally 
>>> reformulate logic.
>>>
>>
>> ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
>> redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
>> incoherent.
>>
> 
> I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. They 
> created a new definition of what a set was, and then showed what that 
> implies, since by changing the definitions, all the old work of set 
> theory has to be thrown out, and then we see what can be established.
> 

None of this is changing any more rules. All
of these are the effects of the change of the
definition of a set.

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