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: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 11:51:22 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 168
Message-ID: <v9qkeb$1tedb$19@dont-email.me>
References: <v86olp$5km4$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>
 <v9p7im$1p6bp$4@dont-email.me>
 <d67278caa0b8782725e806b61adf892028f2bf89@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qd2p$1tedb$10@dont-email.me>
 <4d8c7b1c69915ebbe108d7f4e29cf6172eac7759@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qel5$1tedb$13@dont-email.me>
 <43690773dba43c5d93d11635af0a26532e5be390@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qgn7$1tedb$15@dont-email.me>
 <6272b80d0aeaca324ac8624dce71945edeb59092@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qjg5$1tedb$17@dont-email.me>
 <2e642af254f6140ce8711da64f31d4fd8467d58b@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 18:51:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5c4a0c817977c3965e873c4f304e2b88";
	logging-data="2013611"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19MxvCY2qiSDCXLTAs0d3Ki"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CORAqOCLzK4udZUvg49msoGGbcM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <2e642af254f6140ce8711da64f31d4fd8467d58b@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 9013

On 8/17/2024 11:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/17/24 12:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/17/2024 11:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/17/24 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/17/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/17/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/17/24 10:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is just a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They developed a full formal system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They did nothing besides change the definition of
>>>>>>>> a set and the result of this was a new formal system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess you consider all the papers they wrote describing the 
>>>>>>> effects of their definitions "nothing"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all and you know this.
>>>>>> One change had many effects yet was still one change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But would mean nothing without showing the affects of that change.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yet again with your imprecise use of words.
>>>> When any tiniest portion of the meaning of an expression
>>>> has been defined this teeny tiny piece of the definition
>>>> makes this expression not pure random gibberish.
>>>>
>>>> Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
>>>> an idiom for having zero meaning.
>>>> https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> And your statements have NO Meaning because they are based on LIE.
>>>
>>> We can not use the "ZFC" set theory from *JUST* the definition, but 
>>> need all the other rules derived from it.
>>
>> The root cause of all of the changes is the redefinition
>> of what a set is. Likewise with my own redefinition of a
>> formal system by simply defining the details of True(L,x).
>>
>> Once I specify the architecture others can fill in the details.
>>
> 
> Yes, the ROOT was that change, but you don't understand that if they 
> JUST did that root, and not the other work, Set theory would not have 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========