| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vashs2$gt3t$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: sci.logic Subject: Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable --- truth-bearer Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 16:36:02 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 68 Message-ID: <vashs2$gt3t$1@dont-email.me> References: <v86olp$5km4$1@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$1@dont-email.me> <va7e4r$ebdg$5@dont-email.me> <va9hhv$rnd8$1@dont-email.me> <vabjtg$18mb5$1@dont-email.me> <vamkj9$3d9h5$1@dont-email.me> <van4bn$3f6c0$7@dont-email.me> <vapahi$3t794$1@dont-email.me> <vaptg0$3vumk$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 15:36:03 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ac082c4370ad986ac412f76383045f6e"; logging-data="554109"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18WzIIb3GAKVb31BRdxBGdZ" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:geSYTesZpOK8wx8beGk68r20bks= Bytes: 4577 On 2024-08-29 13:36:00 +0000, olcott said: > On 8/29/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-08-28 12:14:47 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 8/28/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-08-24 03:26:39 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 8/23/2024 3:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-08-22 13:23:39 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> You cannot redefine the foundation of all formal systems. Every formal >>>>>> system has the foundation it has and that cannot be changed. Formal >>>>>> systems are eternal and immutable. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then According to your reasoning ZFC is wrong because >>>>> it is not allowed to redefine the foundation of set >>>>> theory. >>>> >>>> It did not redefine anything. It is just another theory. It is called >>>> a set theory because its terms have many similarities to Cnator's sets. >>> >>> It <is> the correct set theory. Naive set theory >>> is tossed out on its ass for being WRONG. >> >> There is no basis to say that ZF is more or less correct than ZFC. > > A set containing itself has always been incoherent in its > isomorphism to the concrete instance of a can of soup so > totally containing itself that it has no outside surface. > The above words are my own unique creation. There is no need for an isomorphism between a set an a can of soup. There is nothing inherently incoherent in Quine's atom. Some set theories allow it, some don't. Cantor's theory does not say either way. -- Mikko