Path: ...!uucp.uio.no!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: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable --- truth-bearer
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 07:58:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 165
Message-ID: <vb715o$3b4ub$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me> <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> <vb6pj1$3affe$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2024 14:58:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f5540fbd60b9a9e7d5f7c4b40526c50b";
	logging-data="3511243"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/4Hw6iC+H2R1UUrmPOA85+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RLzO+BQB1VwK7+24uXz7c2QrFPw=
In-Reply-To: <vb6pj1$3affe$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8653

On 9/3/2024 5:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 

Nothing that no outside surface exists.
Since I can touch a cup with my fingers
this proves that the cup and my fingers
have an outside surface.

A set containing itself is isomorphic to a can
of soup containing itself. In both cases they
cannot have an outside surface.

The physically existing thing must have out
outside surface proves that the can does not
physically exist.

The the Venn diagram of a set that includes itself
as a member can at best shown a diagram of a pair
of identical sets with overlapping boundaries proves
that a set containing itself cannot exist. It has
always been a misconception.

For one set to be actually contained within another
one this contained set must with inside of the boundaries
of its container set.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========