Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 08:23:39 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <va7e4r$ebdg$5@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> <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>
 <va4nl9$3s0hu$4@dont-email.me> <va79ku$e616$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 15:23:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="62a25b741157347252c8096938b61d22";
	logging-data="470448"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18XLpPwOnaAfNur6jjL+/NW"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:j/SSYNgwo0wXpyKARP6g606C7Go=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <va79ku$e616$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4109

On 8/22/2024 7:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-08-21 12:47:37 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Tarski proved that True is undefineable in certain formal systems.
> Your definition is not expressible in F, at least not as a definition.
> 

Like ZFC redefined the foundation of all sets I redefine
the foundation of all formal systems.

> A problem with your method is that it is ofen not known whether there
> is a sequence of truth-preserving transformations in F and there is
> no method to find out.
> 

Try to show a concrete example of that where self-contradictory
expressions are not needed.

> Your definition also requires truth-preserving is defined without
> reference to truth. Is there any such definiton?
> 

Because it establishes the notion of truth.
Truth is what my foundational axiom says that it is.

Truth is the connection from an expression of language
to its stipulative meaning. Many of the conventional
logic operations are truth preserving, some are not.

After the architecture of my system is understood and
accepted then we do these further elaborations.

This is all aspects of my categorically exhaustively complete
system of reasoning. Work on the broadest category first and
then progressively narrow to smaller categories.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer