Path: ...!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 14:56:37 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <v9snhl$2chc2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me> <v9oddf$1i745$2@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> <v9sjat$2bubu$1@dont-email.me> <v9sl6v$2c67u$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 13:56:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="28cfdee9bade4b27347d5cedfd8f79e2";
	logging-data="2508162"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/QxjdET9q9qsnZ2CPhUgSE"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:P31y/jh3wuJ+hPF76CKO3KH4mmw=
Bytes: 2696

On 2024-08-18 11:16:47 +0000, olcott said:

> On 8/18/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-17 17:22:14 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 8/17/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> But usable, until integrated into a Formal Logic system.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> No. Just tacking it on at the end of set theory gets rid of RP.
>> 
>> You needn't. It is provable in naive set theory that no set can be
>> a member of itself. The problem is that in naive set theory you can
>> also prove that there is a set that is a member of itself. Adding
>> new definitions or axioms don't affect either proof. In order to
>> remove a proof you must remove an axiom.
>> 
> 
> I accept whatever process of fully integrating the
> change that Richard said.

You said otherwise when you said "No. Just tacking it on at the end of
set theory gets rid of RP."

-- 
Mikko