Path: ...!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 07:11:19 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 118 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 14:11:20 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0832828dca420f70d701da47ce3141da"; logging-data="1506767"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19deaH67ZTV40RRHdpD4vEC" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:kyeNpOYSVHTZxlcCZ7LqWnkdwgo= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6833 On 8/16/2024 6:42 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-08-16 11:02:07 +0000, olcott said: > >> 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. > > No, it does not. In every consisten system has some x that is > untrue in the above sense. That does not make the negation of > x true in the same sense. Whenever there is no sequence of truth preserving from x or ~x to its meaning in L of F then x has no truth-maker in F and x not a truth-bearer in F. We never get to x is undecidable in F. > Thus there can be a sentence that > is untrue (in the above sense) and is the negation of an untrue > sentence (in the above sense). Existence of such sentences makes > the notion of undecidability meaningful and useful. A particular > example of the usefulness is that it makes easier to ask about > any particular F whether there are undecidable sentences. > > Whether "undecidable" is a good vernacular term for the notion > is another problem. > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer