Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: sci.logic Subject: Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:39:11 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 117 Message-ID: References: <20b1dea98eda49e74e822c96b37565bb3eb36013@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 22:39:12 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0832828dca420f70d701da47ce3141da"; logging-data="1645701"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/GR9Tyyrx/iARDRzpcQ4cl" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ysGTxY4ZBKzwXujPAHLCO7rEHu8= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6870 On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/15/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-08-13 12:43:16 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/13/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-08-12 13:44:33 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be relevant to Quine's topic? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He mentions it 98 times in his paper >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html >>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't looked at it in years. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me is that I have defined expressions of language that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That does not justify lying. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you only want to dodge the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>> topic with any distraction that you can find. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines >>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that >>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic >>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines >>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that >>>>>>>>>>>> anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic >>>>>>>>>>>> distinction. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the >>>>>>>>>>>> expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of existence >>>>>>>>>>> of an >>>>>>>>>>> algrithm makes something computable. You  can't compute if >>>>>>>>>>> you con't >>>>>>>>>>> know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from >>>>>>>>>> the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal >>>>>>>>>> model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is >>>>>>>>>> how the Liar Paradox is best refuted. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nice to see that you con't disagree. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When the idea that I presented is fully understood >>>>>>>> it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you can't prove atl least that you have an interesting idea >>>>>>> nobody is going to stody it enough to understood. >>>>>> >>>>>> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition >>>>>> is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its >>>>>> meaning >>>>>> without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence >>>>> >>>>> Self-evident propositions are uninteresting. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *This abolishes the notion of undecidability* >>>> As with all math and logic we have expressions of language >>>> that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed >>>> in this same language. 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 >>>> x is simply untrue in F. >>> >>> But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability" >> >> Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC >> did to conquer Russell's Paradox. >> >> > > If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are totally > reformulate logic. > ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer incoherent. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer