Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new
 basis ---
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 17:39:24 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <vggund$2am72$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me>
 <fd8bf90393a5bcb10f7913da9081421637262590@i2pn2.org>
 <vg14nd$2t4b1$1@dont-email.me> <SGUUO.312650$kxD8.126005@fx11.iad>
 <vg16dl$2th77$1@dont-email.me> <vg2b6j$374jn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg2gg1$37lpn$5@dont-email.me> <vg4onc$3ngof$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg4uem$3o3ca$1@dont-email.me> <vg7f7l$a1jf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg8ulh$9stc$1@dont-email.me> <vgakbd$vlda$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgbm5r$sgg9$1@dont-email.me> <vgg6fh$2s61$1@news.muc.de>
 <vgg7tk$26klj$1@dont-email.me> <vggjtb$1f3u$1@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2024 00:39:25 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3cf051fb5fa2cddab5c252c15e56daec";
	logging-data="2447586"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19+X12nlbelZbsU8g5crj2v"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:urh+njJ5h9S5PuALaLgib7jUhhE=
In-Reply-To: <vggjtb$1f3u$1@news.muc.de>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241106-12, 11/6/2024), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5633

On 11/6/2024 2:34 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/6/2024 10:45 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 04/11/2024 14:05, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [...] The statement itself does not change
>>>>>>>>> when someone states it so there is no clear advantage in
>>>>>>>>> saying that the statement was not a lie until someone stated
>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>       Disagree.  There is a clear advantage in distinguishing those
>>>>>>>> who make [honest] mistakes from those who wilfully mislead.
>>>>>>> That is not a disagreement.
>>>>>>       I disagree. [:-)]
>>>>> Then show how two statements about distinct topics can disagree.
> 
>>>>          You've had the free, introductory five-minute argument;  the
>>>> half-hour argument has to be paid for. [:-)]
> 
>>>>          [Perhaps more helpfully, "distinct" is your invention.  One same
>>>> statement can be either true or false, a mistake or a lie, depending on
>>>> the context (time. place and motivation) within which it is uttered.
>>>> Plenty of examples both in everyday life and in science, inc maths.  Eg,
>>>> "It's raining!", "The angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees.", "The
>>>> Sun goes round the Earth.".  Each of those is true in some contexts, false
>>>> and a mistake in others, false and a lie in yet others.  English has clear
>>>> distinctions between these, which it is useful to maintain;  it is not
>>>> useful to describe them as "lies" in the absence of any context, eg when
>>>> the statement has not yet been uttered.]
> 
>>> There is another sense in which something could be a lie.  If, for
>>> example, I emphatically asserted some view about the minutiae of medical
>>> surgery, in opposition to the standard view accepted by practicing
>>> surgeons, no matter how sincere I might be in that belief, I would be
>>> lying.  Lying by ignorance.
> 
> 
>> That is a lie unless you qualify your statement with X is a
>> lie(unintentional false statement). It is more truthful to
>> say that statement X is rejected as untrue by a consensus of
>> medical opinion.
> 
> No, as so often, you've missed the nuances.  The essence of the scenario
> is making emphatic statements in a topic which requires expertise, but
> that expertise is missing.  Such as me laying down the law about surgery
> or you doing the same in mathematical logic.
> 

It is not at all my lack of expertise on mathematical logic
it is your ignorance of philosophy of logic as shown by you
lack of understanding of the difference between "a priori"
and "a posteriori" knowledge. Surgical procedures and
mathematical logic are in fundamentally different classes
of knowledge.

>> This allows for the possibility that the consensus is not
>> infallible. No one here allows for the possibility that the
>> current received view is not infallible. Textbooks on the
>> theory of computation are NOT the INFALLIBLE word of God.
> 
> Gods have got nothing to do with it.  2 + 2 = 4, the fact that the world
> is a ball, not flat, Gödel's theorem, and the halting problem, have all
> been demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever.
> 

Regarding the last two they would have said the same thing about 
Russell's Paradox and what is now known as naive set theory at the
time.

That you can't begin to imagine that mathematical logic might
not be infallible is definitely an error on your part as proven
by your failure to point put any error in the following:

(Incomplete(L) ≡  ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)))

*When True(L,x) is only a sequence of truth preserving operations*
*applied to x in L and False(L, x) is only a sequence of truth*
*preserving operations applied to ~x in L then Incomplete(L) becomes* 
*Not_Truth_Bearer(L,x) and nothing more*

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer