Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: sci.logic Subject: Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 13:22:09 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 131 Message-ID: References: <20b1dea98eda49e74e822c96b37565bb3eb36013@i2pn2.org> <7f2a1f77084810d4cee18ac3b44251601380b93a@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 12:22:10 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="65f9434b854ff7a88818fe4e27e130bf"; logging-data="2483138"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/XBWl/Rwi8KaBG4mVuy8KQ" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:8UadZ0ZnkX07yYbOXlCJMasudnk= Bytes: 7566 On 2024-08-16 21:35:21 +0000, olcott said: > On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> >> I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. They >> created a new definition of what a set was, and then showed what that >> implies, since by changing the definitions, all the old work of set >> theory has to be thrown out, and then we see what can be established. >> > > None of this is changing any more rules. All > of these are the effects of the change of the > definition of a set. Zermelo didn't change the rules of logic. He did change the rules of set theory and demostrated that the new roules permitted much of what was reasonable to expect. -- Mikko