Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v9slde$2c84n$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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 14:20:14 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 181 Message-ID: <v9slde$2c84n$1@dont-email.me> References: <v86olp$5km4$1@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> <v9qncv$1tedb$25@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 13:20:14 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="65f9434b854ff7a88818fe4e27e130bf"; logging-data="2498711"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19dpgUqvsFUdaO6eUvp3o2A" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:8ZfcaLblUp3uB2R2DIfFXKDwIdw= Bytes: 10119 On 2024-08-17 17:41:51 +0000, olcott said: > 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 >>>>>>> of what a set is. Likewise with my own redefinition of a >>>>>>> formal system by simply defining the details of True(L,x). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Once I specify the architecture others can fill in the details. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, the ROOT was that change, but you don't understand that if they >>>>>> JUST did that root, and not the other work, Set theory would not have >>>>>> been "fixed", as it still wouldn't have been usable. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Defining that no set can be a member of itself would seem >>>>> to do the trick. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> But usable, until integrated into a Formal Logic system. >>>> >>> >>> No. Just tacking it on at the end of set theory gets rid of RP. >>> >> >> Nope, because you can just ignore any axiom you don't want to use. >> > > It is part of the definition of a set thus cannot be correctly > ignored. You don't need to use an axiom if you can without it do what you want. The definition of proof says that every axiom can be used in a proof. It does not say that every axiom must be used. -- Mikko