Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception --- Tarski
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:16:30 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 122
Message-ID: <vohsdu$29j56$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vnh0sq$35mcm$1@dont-email.me> <vnkov9$1971$1@dont-email.me> <vnl9vj$4f8i$1@dont-email.me> <vnndqs$kef3$1@dont-email.me> <vnpd96$vl84$1@dont-email.me> <vnqm3p$1apip$1@dont-email.me> <vnqsbh$1c5sq$1@dont-email.me> <vnsm90$1pr86$1@dont-email.me> <vnte6s$1tra8$1@dont-email.me> <vnv4tf$2a43e$1@dont-email.me> <vo0249$2eqdl$1@dont-email.me> <vo1qae$2s4cr$1@dont-email.me> <vo2i10$302f0$1@dont-email.me> <vo4nj4$3f6so$1@dont-email.me> <vo5btf$3ipo2$1@dont-email.me> <vo7ckh$q2p$1@dont-email.me> <vo7tdg$36ra$6@dont-email.me> <vo9krm$3octb$1@dont-email.me> <voae76$m3dj$1@dont-email.me> <3f1ed83042ed4a260d1a63ef7c61528ea9858947@i2pn2.org> <vobaaa$rhmq$1@dont-email.me> <8fd6dea147c3f4bf5558d7745b93a25a5e69539f@i2pn2.org> <vobd7n$s681$1@dont-email.me> <dd621ed5b6a556fa6036c40f1ce1de6ad54151d6@i2pn2.org> <vobtra$129n7$1@dont-email.me> <73c982ee889ab3c6590565766809f18607a42b37@i2pn2.org> <vocuhk$17fsh$1@dont-email.me> <vof619$1ndvq$1@dont-email.me> <voflf5$1q1mh$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 11:16:31 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="36b3711a5d472c125feed3539763e0ac";
	logging-data="2411686"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+dtBcLCsdtx3y/LiZVF2JE"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LiC2YgdlJTiswlRCiev9aBCxAos=
Bytes: 7044

On 2025-02-11 14:05:25 +0000, olcott said:

> On 2/11/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-02-10 13:21:56 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 2/10/2025 6:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/9/25 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/9/2025 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/9/25 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 5:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/9/25 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 11:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/25 9:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 1:18 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 08/02/2025 16:51, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/08/2025 07:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Semantics is fully integrated into every expression of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language with each unique natural language sense meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a word having its own GUID.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Illusion and the tyranny of delusion, ad nauseam.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I am finishing the job. I may have only one month left.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The cancer treatment that I will have next month has a 5% chance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of killing me and a 1% chance of ruining my brain. It also has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about a 70% chance of giving me at least two more years of life.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Food be your medicine, medicine be your food.  Conversely,
>>>>>>>>>>>> good luck with any of that.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of just usual model theory and axiomatics
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and "what's true in the logical theory", "what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not falsified in the scientific theory", you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a theory where the quantity is truth, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then there's a Comenius language of it that only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> truisms are well-formed formulas, then the Liar
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "paradox" is only a prototype of a fallacy,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rather, then there is no such thing as a "fallacy", only
>>>>>>>>>>>> flat positivism and Newspeak.  Indeed, Popper already is
>>>>>>>>>>>> yet another bad joke at best, but WTF would you know...
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you did not understand what he said thus
>>>>>>>>>>> replied to his words with nonsense gibberish pure rhetoric
>>>>>>>>>>> with no actual basis in reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  >> there's a Comenius language of it that only
>>>>>>>>>>>  >> truisms are well-formed formulas
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> True(L,x) <is> a mathematical mapping from finite string
>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language through a truthmaker to finite
>>>>>>>>>>> strings expressions providing formalized semantic meanings
>>>>>>>>>>> making the expression true.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> The prototype of a fallacy that he referred to is the
>>>>>>>>>>> recursive structure of pathological self-reference that
>>>>>>>>>>> never resolves to a truth value.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> And, such a mapping can't exist if the language allows references like:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> x is defined to be !True(L, x)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> When we frame it the succinct way that Ross framed it
>>>>>>>>>  >> there's a Comenius language of it that only
>>>>>>>>>  >> truisms are well-formed formulas
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And if True(L, x) isn't "well formed" then True fails to meet the 
>>>>>>>> requirements of a predicate,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Not at all. True(L,x) is no longer baffled by semantically
>>>>>>> incorrect expressions and rejects them as IFF ill-formed-formula.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, what does True(L, x) say for an x defined as !True(L, x)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> All answers are just wrong.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> *The simplest way for you to understand this is*
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2/8/2025 9:51 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>  > then there's a Comenius language of it that only
>>>>>  > truisms are well-formed formulas...
>>>>> 
>>>>> In the Comenius language: x := ~True(L,x)
>>>>> is rejected as an ill-formed-formula.
>>>>> Ross really did boil down the essence much more succinctly.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> So, what is the answer? What answer does True(L, x) return?
>>>> 
>>> When x := ~True(L, x) then the Comenius language parser
>>> returns: Syntax Error.
>> 
>> Which Comenius language parser you tried?
>> Can you give an example of what that parser does accept?
>> 
> 
> There is an inheritance hierarchy tree of knowledge
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
> containing all of the basic facts. Each node on this tree
> has its own unique GUID. These facts are formalized natural
> language using something like Montague Grammar. This provides all
> of the unique sense meanings of every natural language term.
> 
> When a finite string expression of language lacks a connection
> though a truthmaker to the semantics meanings that make it
> true then it is rejected as untrue.
> 
> x := ~True(L, x) is rejected as untrue where L is the
> body of human knowledge.

So the best you can do is to respond verbosely hoping that we
don't notice that you can't answer the question. But we notice.

-- 
Mikko