Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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 23:05:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 125
Message-ID: <v9p7im$1p6bp$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@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>
 <v9ogmp$1i745$6@dont-email.me>
 <662de0ccc3dc5a5f0be0918d340aa3314d51a348@i2pn2.org>
 <v9oj4r$1i745$8@dont-email.me>
 <02642e518edd3aa9152cd47e4e527f21ee53a0e8@i2pn2.org>
 <v9okho$1i745$10@dont-email.me>
 <60c0214582c7f97e49ef6f8853bff95569774f97@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 06:05:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5c4a0c817977c3965e873c4f304e2b88";
	logging-data="1874297"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Ylc2cHgFSC1G7axqcoF66"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qhEY4tnvT1HUuLOWctOS4CRQKOc=
In-Reply-To: <60c0214582c7f97e49ef6f8853bff95569774f97@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6589

On 8/16/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/16/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could do as 
>>>>> basic operations ON a set.
>>>>>
>>>>> Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, that 
>>>>> ZFC is built on first-order logic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set can not 
>>>>> be a member of itself, and that we can count the members of a set.
>>>>>
>>>> This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox.
>>>> If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change
>>>> or was not required to defeat RP.
>>>
>>> but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, they needed to define 
>>> the full set.
>>>
>>> I think you problem is you just don't understand how formal logic works.
>>>
>>
>> I think at a higher level of abstraction.
> 
> No, you don't, unless you mean by that not bothering to make sure the 
> details work.
> 
> You can't do fundamental logic in the abstract.
> 
> That is just called fluff and bluster.
> 
>>
>> All that they did is just like I said they redefined
>> what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of details of
>> how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement
>> saying that all they did is redefine a set.
> 
> Showing the sort of thing YOU need to do to redefine logic
> 
> 

I said that ZFC redefined the notion of a set to get rid of RP.
You show the steps of how ZFC redefined a set as your rebuttal.

>>
>> My redefinition of formal system does this exact same
>> sort of thing in the same way. I do change the term
>> {logical operation} to {truth preserving operation}.
>> Other than that the only thing that is changed is
>> the notion of {formal system}. I don't even change
>> this very much.
>>
> 
> Then where is your paper showing what comes out of your ideas?
> 

No sentence writing a paper when everyone assumes
that all of the details are wrong before I ever say them.

> So, you change the term, and thus EMPTY the system of proved results.
> 
> What have you done to refill it?
> 
> Sounds like you have an architectural sketch of a building, and are 
> asking people to buy units and move in.
> 
> Nope, doesn't work that way, you need to build the system first, not 
> just have a rough sketch of what you think it should look like.
> 
> 
> Seems like you are just being a scammer.


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