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: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 13:19:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 229
Message-ID: <v9qpju$1tedb$30@dont-email.me>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v9qon8$1tedb$27@dont-email.me>
 <e452294ec866e3297f9bfec55eff17db4a347a25@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 20:19:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5c4a0c817977c3965e873c4f304e2b88";
	logging-data="2013611"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/A18iO5uvHomxwBK56XamN"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zVQJ/52hEN4Xn43CHISx9otAxgo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <e452294ec866e3297f9bfec55eff17db4a347a25@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 12341

On 8/17/2024 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/17/24 2:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========