Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:41:51 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 189
Message-ID: <v9qncv$1tedb$25@dont-email.me>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v9qkeb$1tedb$19@dont-email.me>
 <f883e0312dcbce8663eaa445348e225687d83959@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qm86$1tedb$22@dont-email.me>
 <a2c1ed800e02c5e922df63241206c00d855680d5@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 19:41:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5c4a0c817977c3965e873c4f304e2b88";
	logging-data="2013611"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX181RLdttZCXXUg7lcMIoxGX"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nYHwgp8dFtrmK4i2yA48Q4Wq/go=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <a2c1ed800e02c5e922df63241206c00d855680d5@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 10281

On 8/17/2024 12:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/17/24 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/17/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/17/24 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========