Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!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 14:56:37 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <7f2a1f77084810d4cee18ac3b44251601380b93a@i2pn2.org> <662de0ccc3dc5a5f0be0918d340aa3314d51a348@i2pn2.org> <02642e518edd3aa9152cd47e4e527f21ee53a0e8@i2pn2.org> <60c0214582c7f97e49ef6f8853bff95569774f97@i2pn2.org> <4d8c7b1c69915ebbe108d7f4e29cf6172eac7759@i2pn2.org> <43690773dba43c5d93d11635af0a26532e5be390@i2pn2.org> <6272b80d0aeaca324ac8624dce71945edeb59092@i2pn2.org> <2e642af254f6140ce8711da64f31d4fd8467d58b@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 13:56:38 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="28cfdee9bade4b27347d5cedfd8f79e2"; logging-data="2508162"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/QxjdET9q9qsnZ2CPhUgSE" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:P31y/jh3wuJ+hPF76CKO3KH4mmw= Bytes: 2696 On 2024-08-18 11:16:47 +0000, olcott said: > On 8/18/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-08-17 17:22:14 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 8/17/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> >>>> But usable, until integrated into a Formal Logic system. >>>> >>> >>> No. Just tacking it on at the end of set theory gets rid of RP. >> >> You needn't. It is provable in naive set theory that no set can be >> a member of itself. The problem is that in naive set theory you can >> also prove that there is a set that is a member of itself. Adding >> new definitions or axioms don't affect either proof. In order to >> remove a proof you must remove an axiom. >> > > I accept whatever process of fully integrating the > change that Richard said. You said otherwise when you said "No. Just tacking it on at the end of set theory gets rid of RP." -- Mikko