Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 13:14:42 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <v9shii$2bmob$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me> <v8a4vf$uhll$1@dont-email.me> <v8aqh7$11ivs$1@dont-email.me> <v8cr4g$1gk19$1@dont-email.me> <v8dinp$1kii7$1@dont-email.me> <v8hv72$2mmsq$1@dont-email.me> <v8iisj$2qetj$1@dont-email.me> <v8kuhb$3d5q8$1@dont-email.me> <v8lc7p$3f6vr$2@dont-email.me> <v8naa8$3uo7s$1@dont-email.me> <v8nqo7$1n09$1@dont-email.me> <v8sm9o$1gk42$1@dont-email.me> <v8t2fl$1ilg6$2@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 12:14:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="65f9434b854ff7a88818fe4e27e130bf";
	logging-data="2480907"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+9PR0p94wHAFeSs7XrPP/Y"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JIAgrT2l/LH6jGL8goOtFuxE1ks=

On 2024-08-16 18:11:46 +0000, olcott said:

> On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/15/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-08-13 12:43:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 8/13/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-08-12 13:44:33 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be relevant to Quine's topic?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> He mentions it 98 times in his paper
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't looked at it in years.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that matters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me is that I have defined expressions of language that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That does not justify lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> topic with any distraction that you can find.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
>>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
>>>>>>>>>>> anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
>>>>>>>>>>> distinction.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the
>>>>>>>>>>> expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of existence of an
>>>>>>>>>> algrithm makes something computable. You  can't compute if you con't
>>>>>>>>>> know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from
>>>>>>>>> the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal
>>>>>>>>> model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is
>>>>>>>>> how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Nice to see that you con't disagree.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> When the idea that I presented is fully understood
>>>>>>> it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you can't prove atl least that you have an interesting idea
>>>>>> nobody is going to stody it enough to understood.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition
>>>>> is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
>>>>> without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>>>> 
>>>> Self-evident propositions are uninteresting.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> *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.

Zermelo constructed a new formal theory that does not have that paradox.
Note that the paradox was not present in Cantor's original theory as
Cantor did not promise that Russell's set exists. But Cantor's original
presentation was not fully formal so it was not clear that Russell's
set does not exist.

-- 
Mikko