Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: sci.logic Subject: Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception --- philosophy of logic -- Newspeak Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2025 12:25:02 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 106 Message-ID: References: <7e3e9d35d880cfcad12f505dfb39c5650cdd249e@i2pn2.org> <3cf165ef9793e844dc9d5db82aecbc47f9545367@i2pn2.org> <080bf2b1c322247548c6ec61c9f054359062ccd4@i2pn2.org> <6fc61a762b56308f9919993f29ba3e77f7ba84c7@i2pn2.org> <41ca355a1f535e767e17d3f4df3d404eb1e61cef@i2pn2.org> <82c622bcbeb9712d3939e918a3c43ca5d9956b5b@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2025 19:25:03 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7b4f06e456023699d538e77dba30bc57"; logging-data="357026"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+aKlKu0/QaXPwDYftXiAMk" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:7uCBBYJrqKCeZXbWpyQuyRrFFS0= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250301-6, 3/1/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6069 On 3/1/2025 12:14 PM, dbush wrote: > On 3/1/2025 12:59 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 3/1/2025 10:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 3/1/25 10:03 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 3/1/2025 6:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 2/28/25 7:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 2/28/2025 5:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/28/25 5:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The bottom line here is that expressions that do not have >>>>>>>> a truth-maker are always untrue. Logic screws this up by >>>>>>>> overriding the common meaning of terms with incompatible >>>>>>>> meanings. Provable(common) means has a truth-maker. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the problem is you try to make statements that have been >>>>>>> shown to have a truth-make untrue, because you don't understand >>>>>>> the conneciton to the truth-maker. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Your complete ignorance of the philosophy of logic has >>>>>> never been my ignorance of logic. Logic says carefully >>>>>> memorize the rules and do not violate these rules. >>>>>> >>>>>> Philosophy of logic says: What happens when we totally >>>>>> change these rules in many different ways? >>>>>> >>>>>> Do we get a different result when we totally change all >>>>>> of these rules? >>>>>> >>>>>> What if unprovable meant untrue? >>>>>> Would that get rid of undecidability? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And thus you admit that NONE of your statement applies to the >>>>> fields they apply to, >>>> >>>> Philosophy of logic corrects the issues with logic. >>>> When we retain the original meanings of the terms >>>> then provable(common) is the truth-maker for true(common). >>>> >>>> It is only the weird idiomatic divergence from these common >>>> meanings of common terms using terms-of-the-art meanings >>>> that enables incompleteness(math) and undecidability(logic) >>>> to exist. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> And the Philosophy of Logic has no power of the Logic System that >>> define themselfs. Your problem is it seems you don't even understand >>> the Philosophy of Logic, because you can't even use it correctly. >>> >> >> When we try the different options that Philosophy of Logic >> allows and thus do not assume that the fallible humans >> that created modern logic were infallible and all knowing >> and thus the rules of logic that they derived are not the >> infallible word-of-God then >> >> we can easily get rid of both undecidability and incompleteness >> by retaining the original provable(common) is the truth-maker >> for true(common). >> >> Wittgenstein also knew this: bottom of page 6 >> >> https://www.researchgate.net/ >> publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel >> >> undecidability and incompleteness are merely an artifact >> of overriding provable(common) and True(common) with >> incompatible idiomatic term-of-the-art meanings. >> >> *This is the same sort of idea as newspeak* >> Newspeak, which is a controlled language of simplified >> grammar and limited vocabulary designed to limit a person's >> ability for critical thinking. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak >> > > You say that a statement is "provable" if it contains a link to a > truthmaker. > > So what name would you give to a statement where the only connection to > its truthmaker is infinite? Finally a good question that is not mere trolling. Every truth requires a truth-maker. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture Also requires a truth-maker otherwise it is impossibly true. This is not an empirical truth where we can look under a specific rock and find the answer. What are the possible ways to find the answer? (a) Some finite sequence of steps (b) Some infinite sequence of steps else untrue. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer