Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.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 13:18:31 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <v9shpn$2bno2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v86olp$5km4$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> <cd12fb81fcd05d2e112fc8aca2f5b791c521cfc9@i2pn2.org> <v9oddf$1i745$2@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 12:18:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="65f9434b854ff7a88818fe4e27e130bf";
	logging-data="2481922"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+aJN6wEEaYhlMXVSr3fr8V"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+ivSEg/6Rr8G2DAhmaFkSghkqjA=
Bytes: 6918

On 2024-08-16 20:39:11 +0000, olcott said:

> 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:
>>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 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.

As the notion of set is the all what a set theory is about,
a redefinition of the notion of a set is means Zermelo started
from square one and built an entirely new formal system.

-- 
Mikko