Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 11:43:37 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <vaul3p$v1nl$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$1@dont-email.me> <vasluc$hg5i$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 10:43:37 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e8b2e9bd39035b24891d907aad06df10";
	logging-data="1017589"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+tb/+QpCi1VCN6tguEyfa+"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:09P9VMcutO6uWGtfuEaczmj68NM=
Bytes: 5408

On 2024-08-30 14:45:32 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

As I already said, that isomorphism is not needed. It is not useful.
Anyway, nice to see that you don't disagree with may observation that
Quines atom is not inherently incoherent.

-- 
Mikko