Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new
 basis --- infallibly correct
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 09:11:13 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <vh2fih$28i10$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vgodcf$kll$1@news.muc.de>
 <vgoed9$3ucjr$1@dont-email.me> <vgoi51$kll$2@news.muc.de>
 <vgojp1$3v611$1@dont-email.me> <vgol50$kll$3@news.muc.de>
 <vgom8r$3vue8$1@dont-email.me> <vgonlv$kll$4@news.muc.de>
 <vgoqv6$qht$2@dont-email.me> <vgq0dv$1trm$1@news.muc.de>
 <vgqifj$e0q0$2@dont-email.me> <vgqnfl$2ca0$1@news.muc.de>
 <vgqt2v$gdj5$2@dont-email.me> <vgr04c$dfn$1@news.muc.de>
 <vgr3vt$hf6i$2@dont-email.me> <vgr5fv$dfn$2@news.muc.de>
 <vh0nm0$1qvhf$1@dont-email.me> <vh2472$1hv7$1@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:11:14 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="235d09a4263a99e9a1c88df5a1e911bc";
	logging-data="2377760"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/tjtpJvCjPQtY97KiWl0Ij"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BbobmJyaapXQuFW9khND3+W3LBA=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241113-2, 11/13/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vh2472$1hv7$1@news.muc.de>
Bytes: 5239

On 11/13/2024 5:57 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/10/2024 2:36 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/2024 1:04 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> 
>>> [ .... ]
> 
>>>>> I have addressed your point perfectly well.  Gödel's theorem is correct,
>>>>> therefore you are wrong.  What part of that don't you understand?
> 
>>>> YOU FAIL TO SHOW THE DETAILS OF HOW THIS DOES
>>>> NOT GET RID OF INCOMPLETENESS.
> 
>>> The details are unimportant.  Gödel's theorem is correct.  Your ideas
>>> contradict that theorem.  Therefore your ideas are incorrect.  Again, the
>>> precise details are unimportant, and you wouldn't understand them
>>> anyway.  Your ideas are as coherent as 2 + 2 = 5.
> 
> 
>> Incomplete(L) ≡  ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x))
>> When the above foundational definition ceases to exist then
>> Gödel's proof cannot prove incompleteness.
> 
>> *You just don't understand this at its foundational level*
> 
> You make me laugh, sometimes (at you, not with you).
> 
> What on Earth do you mean by a definition "ceasing to exist"?  Do you
> mean you shut your eyes and pretend you can't see it?
> 

It is very easy if your weren't stuck in rebuttal mode
not giving a rat's ass for truth you would already know.

A set as a member of itself ceases to exist in ZFC, thus
making Russell's Paradox cease to exist in ZFC.

> Incompleteness exists as a concept, whether you like it or not.  Gödel's
> theorem is proven, whether you like it or not (evidently the latter).
> 

When the definition of Incompleteness:
Incomplete(L) ≡  ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x))
   becomes
¬TruthBearer(L,x) ≡  ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x))

Then meeting the criteria for incompleteness means something
else entirely and incompleteness can no longer be proven.

After 2000 years most of the greatest experts in the world
still believe that "This sentence is not true" is undecidable
rather than incorrect.

> As for your attempts to pretend that unprovable statements are the same
> as false statements, 

I never said anything like that. You are so stuck on rebuttal
that you can't even keep track on the exact words that I
actually said.

I never said that ~True(L,x) == False(L,x). That is an egregious
error on your part. I have been saying the direct opposite of your
claim for years now. False(L, x) == True(L, ~x)

There cannot possibly be any expressions of language that
are true in L that are not determined to be true on the
basis of applying a sequence of truth preserving operations
in L to Haskell_Curry_Elementary_Theorems in L.

https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf

Everything that is true on the basis of its meaning
expressed in language is shown to be true this exact
same way, within this same language.

Logicians take the prior work of other humans as inherently
infallible. Philosophers of logic examine alternative views
that may be more coherent.

> Mark Twain got it right when he asked "How many legs
> does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?".  To which the answer is
> "Four: calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.".
> 
>> -- 
>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> 


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