Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vbbnmc$8qb7$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!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: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 10:47:24 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 140 Message-ID: <vbbnmc$8qb7$1@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> <vb715o$3b4ub$3@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2024 09:47:25 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="41e98385bc3f4fa14336b6e96bd31129"; logging-data="289127"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19gOE/ie+2x18dDm1yYuUOk" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:LUJ/MUcWrwIO8Sey0ShTjfg6nSk= Bytes: 7926 On 2024-09-03 12:58:32 +0000, olcott said: > 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. That is an unphysical illusion. There is nothing in the cup and fingers other than atoms. Atoms don't have a surface. You get a false impression because your senses don't sense small details. -- Mikko