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 13:04:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 210
Message-ID: <v9qon8$1tedb$27@dont-email.me>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v9qncv$1tedb$25@dont-email.me>
 <2d7efb21a7466aa56ed7be937da998852f6882af@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 20:04:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5c4a0c817977c3965e873c4f304e2b88";
	logging-data="2013611"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+2DP8A/tvI6R4AVwB7xnVU"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qdL96uP25yIlQjOORUk8yyhTaiw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <2d7efb21a7466aa56ed7be937da998852f6882af@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 11243

On 8/17/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/17/24 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========