Path: ...!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: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 13:49:05 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <vb6pj1$3affe$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@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> <vb4c09$2r7ok$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2024 12:49:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="347a09bea0f74aba6b28adcca457a6e2";
	logging-data="3489262"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19HOglmvQ4mIqNMlEVf0LB9"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Bp7kUNf93Nu9USlONTtjEBnLotw=
Bytes: 7185

On 2024-09-02 12:44:57 +0000, olcott said:

> 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

In that case nothing physically exists. Every outside surface is
merely an illusion.

-- 
Mikko