Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 09:11:58 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <v9c93e$35sg6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me> <v8a4vf$uhll$1@dont-email.me> <v8aqh7$11ivs$1@dont-email.me> <v8cr4g$1gk19$1@dont-email.me> <v8dinp$1kii7$1@dont-email.me> <v8hv72$2mmsq$1@dont-email.me> <v8iisj$2qetj$1@dont-email.me> <v8kuhb$3d5q8$1@dont-email.me> <v8lc7p$3f6vr$2@dont-email.me> <v8naa8$3uo7s$1@dont-email.me> <v8nqo7$1n09$1@dont-email.me> <v8sm9o$1gk42$1@dont-email.me> <v8t2fl$1ilg6$2@dont-email.me> <v8v97m$2cofk$1@dont-email.me> <v8vusp$32fso$16@dont-email.me> <v91p95$3ppav$1@dont-email.me> <v92q4f$37e9$1@dont-email.me> <v94l1p$ldq7$1@dont-email.me> <v95c2j$p5rb$4@dont-email.me> <v95cke$p5rb$5@dont-email.me> <v977fo$gsru$1@dont-email.me> <v97goj$ielu$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 08:11:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="265e39e9e56a33a84eaaf570b029ada4";
	logging-data="3338758"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/IwMUW+BuMpsqUPjVQWZ+W"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:R4wYp17VWQfqDjYwm2STFxbfebE=
Bytes: 3897

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.

-- 
Mikko