Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable --- truth-bearer
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 22:43:30 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <bcbebf04fffc6303a7c7b0c9e40738214b92c22e@i2pn2.org>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me>
 <20b1dea98eda49e74e822c96b37565bb3eb36013@i2pn2.org>
 <v9o4p2$1h5u4$1@dont-email.me>
 <cd12fb81fcd05d2e112fc8aca2f5b791c521cfc9@i2pn2.org>
 <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> <v9sisj$2bs9m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9slov$2c67u$3@dont-email.me> <v9uusd$2q1fo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9vfh4$2rjt1$10@dont-email.me> <va1p24$3bb53$1@dont-email.me>
 <va26l9$3cvgv$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 02:43:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3290284"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <va26l9$3cvgv$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7102
Lines: 135

On 8/20/24 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/20/2024 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-19 12:58:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 8/19/2024 3:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-08-18 11:26:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/18/2024 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-08-17 15:47:51 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are lying. According to that page the word "meaningless"
>>>>>> has two meanings. The other is 'having no real importance or value'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. I always use the base meaning of a term as its only meaning.
>>>>> That makes things much simpler if everyone knows this standard.
>>>>
>>>> People have different opions about which meaning is the "base"
>>>> meaning.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The most commonly used sense meaning at the first
>>> index in the dictionary.
>>
>> If you want to use this you should say so and specify the dictionary
>> in the beginning of your opus. You shold not choose a dictionary
>> that presents obsolete and archaic meanings first.
>>
> 
> Base meaning as in the meaning in a knowledge ontology
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
> basis that all other sense meanings inherit from.
> 
>>>>> For example a liar must be intentionally deceptive not merely 
>>>>> mistaken.
>>>>
>>>> For example people may regard you as a liar if you say something untrue
>>>> when you were too lazy to check the facts.
>>>
>>> I am redefining the foundations of logic thus my definitions
>>> are stipulated to override and supersede the original definitions.
>>
>> If you want to use definitions other that the first meaning given
>> by the dictionary, you must present the definition before the
>> first use in each opus that uses it.
>>
> 
> The key term that I am slightly adapting is the term {analytic}
> from the analytic synthetic distinction. That is why the
> title of this post says Analytic(Olcott)

Which, as I pointed out elswhere, basically means you aren't actually 
talking about formal systems, as they don't have that distinction, 
because there is no sense based truth to be synthetic.

> 
>>> It took a long time to reverse-engineer the subtle nuances of
>>> the exact details of what needed to be changed.
>>
>> It seems that you have not yet completed that task.
>>
> 
> I have competed the architecture of the task.
> We cannot move on to further elaboration until
> people quite rejecting the architecture out-of-hand.

No, you haven't, because you haven't sat down an listed the axioms of 
your Formal System, so you haven't "completed"  (or even really strated) 
your architecture.

> 
> *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 then x is simply
> untrue in F.

But Godel's G *IS* an expression that has a connection through an 
INFINITE sequence of truth preserving operations in PA. It just can't be 
proven in PA, as proofs require finite sequences in the system.

> 
> Whenever there is no sequence of truth preserving from
> x or ~x to its meaning in L of F then x has no truth-maker
> in F and x not a truth-bearer in F. We never get to x is
> undecidable in F
> 
> 

Wrong.

Truth allows an infinte sequence of steps.

Decidability requires a FINITE sequence of steps.

That difference is where undeciability comes into existance.

Requiring Truth to be only established by finite sequences breaks too 
much logic, and greatly limits what can be exressed. In particular, you 
lose mathematics. Things that we could show must be true or false, but 
we can't show which, end up being non-truth-bearers.

We also end up with a system that can't talk about what it doesn't know 
yet, as not-yet-known might be unknowable, and thus neither true or false.

And, you can't let "proofs" use infinite sequences, as that breaks 
epistomolgy, as we are finite, and can only know what can be shown with 
a finite proof.