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: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 07:44:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 270
Message-ID: <vb4c09$2r7ok$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me> <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$1@dont-email.me> <vaul3p$v1nl$1@dont-email.me>
 <vav1mc$10jsm$2@dont-email.me> <vb1mp7$1g660$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb1qv5$1g7lq$2@dont-email.me> <vb3sjh$1t9rc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2024 14:44:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a2fe8748f6382997edaeece42547d6b5";
	logging-data="2989844"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/XMfiiITlv/yWCgj5v5QSc"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:M7fLXwYpq/7RsSpWr6RbQt4A8oM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vb3sjh$1t9rc$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 12508

On 9/2/2024 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-09-01 13:41:57 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 9/1/2024 7:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-08-31 12:18:20 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 8/31/2024 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> It proves incoherence at a deeper level.
>>>
>>> No, it does not. If you want to get an incoherence proven you need
>>> to prove it yourself.
>>>
>>
>> When you try to imagine a can of soup that soup totally contains
>> itself that it has no outside boundary you can see that this is 
>> impossible because it is incoherent.
>>
>> It requires simultaneous mutually exclusive properties.
>> (a) It must have an outside surface because all physical
>> things have an outside surface.
> 
> Perhaps physical things in some sense have an outside surface but
> that surface is not a part of the thing. We get the imression of
> a surface because the resolution of our eyes and other senses is
> too coarse to observe the small details of physical things.
> 

No it has an actual surface. When we pick up a ball
we touch its surface. If is had no outer surface we
could not pick up a ball.

>> (b) It must not have an outside surface otherwise it is
>> not totally containing itself.
> 
> It hasn't.
> 

If it has no outside surface then it does not physically exist
It is has an outside surface then it does not totally contain itself.
Thus any thing physical or conceptual that totally contains
itself is incoherent.

>> When we try to draw the Venn diagram of a set that totally
>> contains itself we have this exact same problem.
> 
> Venn diagrams do not define what is and what is not a set.

One set containing another set is shown by a smaller circle
inside a larger circle. A set containing itself cannot be
shown as both smaller than itself and larger than itself.
It can only be diagrammed as an identical set to itself.

Yet again we show that the premise of RP is incoherent
with no need for any actual paradox.

> 
>>>> Prior to my isomorphism we only have Russell's Paradox to show
>>>> that there is a problem with Naive set theory.
>>>
>>> Which is sufficicient for that purpose.
>>>
>>>> That these kind of paradoxes are not understood to
>>>> mean incoherence in the system has allowed the issue
>>>
>>> What system? They are understood to indicate inconsistency of
>>> the naive set theory and similar theories.
>>>
>>>> of undecidability to remain open.
>>>
>>> What is "open" in the "issue" of undecidability?
>>>
>>
>> No one has ever bothered to notice that "undecidability" derived
>> from pathological self-reference is isomorphic to a set containing
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========