Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable --- truth-bearer
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:47:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 162
Message-ID: <va4nl9$3s0hu$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <bcbebf04fffc6303a7c7b0c9e40738214b92c22e@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:47:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6fc4e6078b6f11ac657df23e0012e04d";
	logging-data="4063806"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18/Qcd3BOOLn/Q54PvrGjpD"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oP8uIwH+/g6PxdvZxzw2qtukiwg=
In-Reply-To: <bcbebf04fffc6303a7c7b0c9e40738214b92c22e@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8248

On 8/20/2024 9:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
> 


Formal systems kind of sort of has some vague idea of what True
means. Tarski "proved" that there is no True(L,x) that can be
consistently defined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem#General_form

*The defined predicate True(L,x) fixed that*
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.

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.

>>
>>>> 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.


========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========