Path: ...!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: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 09:45:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <vasluc$hg5i$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me> <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$1@dont-email.me> <vashs2$gt3t$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 16:45:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0bcb2e8a964ef5ab37c2a5858ba7d4a2";
	logging-data="573618"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18TIGmzILuzcWVFqCi8Bsrm"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qASyjDca5yRvdsIpdXzCCfGjEL8=
In-Reply-To: <vashs2$gt3t$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5278

On 8/30/2024 8:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 

Quine atoms (named after Willard Van Orman Quine) are sets that only 
contain themselves, that is, sets that satisfy the formula x = {x}.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement#Quine_atoms

Wrongo. This is exactly isomorphic to the incoherent notion of a
can of soup so totally containing itself that it has no outside
boundary.



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