Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception ---
 philosophy of logic -- Newspeak
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2025 13:40:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <vpvkah$b70a$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vnh0sq$35mcm$1@dont-email.me> <vpc560$3sqf7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpd5r4$2q85$2@dont-email.me>
 <7e3e9d35d880cfcad12f505dfb39c5650cdd249e@i2pn2.org>
 <vpfo75$js1o$1@dont-email.me>
 <f3c8332f4b42f8e085d4d4dac017ccc8a0dc5a5f@i2pn2.org>
 <vpgt6o$tiun$1@dont-email.me>
 <3cf165ef9793e844dc9d5db82aecbc47f9545367@i2pn2.org>
 <vpiubu$1fvqe$1@dont-email.me>
 <080bf2b1c322247548c6ec61c9f054359062ccd4@i2pn2.org>
 <vpj8c9$1hivf$3@dont-email.me>
 <6fc61a762b56308f9919993f29ba3e77f7ba84c7@i2pn2.org>
 <vpl2q5$23vks$6@dont-email.me>
 <41ca355a1f535e767e17d3f4df3d404eb1e61cef@i2pn2.org>
 <vplr1t$28j3a$2@dont-email.me> <vps1n5$3k4j1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vptbtg$3rlov$2@dont-email.me>
 <f2e04c396dbde6131f5c9cc0b7ff7dfbe887a983@i2pn2.org>
 <vptjsf$3st19$7@dont-email.me>
 <e07a3926bb1c5279d87403b1246659c8c28e8b09@i2pn2.org>
 <vpv7jo$8sdm$2@dont-email.me>
 <82c622bcbeb9712d3939e918a3c43ca5d9956b5b@i2pn2.org>
 <vpvhtd$asl2$1@dont-email.me> <vpviqt$b70b$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpvjdv$asl2$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2025 19:40:19 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="346f6112cd21f9da9d3dd26c385a1227";
	logging-data="367626"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19wRgEm3Fq/AEHRq9rOasoC"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PFGOqywc2v7jcv2aGCngYfBbr6U=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vpvjdv$asl2$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6163

On 3/1/2025 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/1/2025 12:14 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/1/2025 12:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2025 10:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/25 10:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/1/2025 6:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/28/25 7:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/28/2025 5:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/28/25 5:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The bottom line here is that expressions that do not have
>>>>>>>>> a truth-maker are always untrue. Logic screws this up by
>>>>>>>>> overriding the common meaning of terms with incompatible
>>>>>>>>> meanings. Provable(common) means has a truth-maker.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the problem is you try to make statements that have been 
>>>>>>>> shown to have a truth-make untrue, because you don't understand 
>>>>>>>> the conneciton to the truth-maker.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your complete ignorance of the philosophy of logic has
>>>>>>> never been my ignorance of logic. Logic says carefully
>>>>>>> memorize the rules and do not violate these rules.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Philosophy of logic says: What happens when we totally
>>>>>>> change these rules in many different ways?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do we get a different result when we totally change all
>>>>>>> of these rules?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What if unprovable meant untrue?
>>>>>>> Would that get rid of undecidability?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And thus you admit that NONE of your statement applies to the 
>>>>>> fields they apply to, 
>>>>>
>>>>> Philosophy of logic corrects the issues with logic.
>>>>> When we retain the original meanings of the terms
>>>>> then provable(common) is the truth-maker for true(common).
>>>>>
>>>>> It is only the weird idiomatic divergence from these common
>>>>> meanings of common terms using terms-of-the-art meanings
>>>>> that enables incompleteness(math) and undecidability(logic)
>>>>> to exist.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the Philosophy of Logic has no power of the Logic System that 
>>>> define themselfs. Your problem is it seems you don't even understand 
>>>> the Philosophy of Logic, because you can't even use it correctly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When we try the different options that Philosophy of Logic
>>> allows and thus do not assume that the fallible humans
>>> that created modern logic were infallible and all knowing
>>> and thus the rules of logic that they derived are not the
>>> infallible word-of-God then
>>>
>>> we can easily get rid of both undecidability and incompleteness
>>> by retaining the original provable(common) is the truth-maker
>>> for true(common).
>>>
>>> Wittgenstein also knew this: bottom of page 6
>>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>> publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>
>>> undecidability and incompleteness are merely an artifact
>>> of overriding provable(common) and True(common) with
>>> incompatible idiomatic term-of-the-art meanings.
>>>
>>> *This is the same sort of idea as newspeak*
>>> Newspeak, which is a controlled language of simplified
>>> grammar and limited vocabulary designed to limit a person's
>>> ability for critical thinking.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
>>>
>>
>> You say that a statement is "provable" if it contains a link to a 
>> truthmaker.
>>
>> So what name would you give to a statement where the only connection 
>> to its truthmaker is infinite?
> 
> Finally a good question that is not mere trolling.
> Every truth requires a truth-maker.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> Also requires a truth-maker otherwise it is impossibly true.
> This is not an empirical truth where we can look under
> a specific rock and find the answer.
> 
> What are the possible ways to find the answer?
> (a) Some finite sequence of steps
> (b) Some infinite sequence of steps
> 
> else untrue.
> 

You're saying every true statement has a truthmaker.  Fine.

What name would you give to a statement where the only connection to its 
truthmaker is infinite?