Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: How a True(X) predicate can be defined for the set of analytic
 knowledge
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2025 22:11:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <vssrd4$3pobo$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfvbd$256og$2@dont-email.me> <vsce69$2fv3s$1@dont-email.me>
 <7e0f966861ff1efd916d8d9c32cc9309fd92fe82@i2pn2.org>
 <vsckdc$2l3cb$1@dont-email.me>
 <cd467496ff18486f746047b3b1affc4927981c0c@i2pn2.org>
 <vsct12$2ub5m$1@dont-email.me>
 <3ab00594a6cdaa3ca8aa32da86b865f3a56d5159@i2pn2.org>
 <vsd1p9$379dn$3@dont-email.me>
 <45167877871179050e15837d637c4c8a22e661fd@i2pn2.org>
 <vsenb0$th5g$7@dont-email.me>
 <4c1393a97bc073e455df99e0a2d3a47bfc71d940@i2pn2.org>
 <vsfe66$1m8qr$4@dont-email.me>
 <7286761fb720294d7a87d883fc82c8f8cf95a460@i2pn2.org>
 <vsfl7f$1s8b0$3@dont-email.me>
 <6edcdf0fa4f6ec503240b27a5801f93c470ed7d6@i2pn2.org>
 <vsh931$3mdkb$1@dont-email.me> <vsivgk$1fjla$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsjmtj$26s7s$2@dont-email.me> <vslbsr$1uta$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsmlq3$1bbrc$1@dont-email.me> <vsqm6m$1msj7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsrqi8$2rgr9$2@dont-email.me>
 <0d7e70842fd4f479836f288d42e65d9e583b3b2c@i2pn2.org>
 <vss5mq$375du$4@dont-email.me>
 <3c2784ad9f46e46b3c90a02ead5985c68ba30db8@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2025 05:11:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="793f083d72b4d17330ab83742da338c2";
	logging-data="3989880"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ibGGZxgpt1Dh7Fs8Uiuem"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vVxZXNrCtXtYTJPLqA9jaELQgqQ=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250405-6, 4/5/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <3c2784ad9f46e46b3c90a02ead5985c68ba30db8@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4928

On 4/5/2025 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/5/25 5:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/5/2025 3:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/5/25 1:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2025 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-04-03 18:59:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/3/2025 2:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-04-02 15:59:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2025 4:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-01 17:51:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All we have to do is make a C program that does this
>>>>>>>>>> with pairs of finite strings then it becomes self-evidently
>>>>>>>>>> correct needing no proof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There already are programs that check proofs. But you can make 
>>>>>>>>> your own
>>>>>>>>> if you think the logic used by the existing ones is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the your logic system is sufficiently weak there may also be 
>>>>>>>>> a way to
>>>>>>>>> make a C program that can construct the proof or determine that 
>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>> none.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we define a system that cannot possibly be inconsistent
>>>>>>>> then a proof of consistency not needed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But a proof of paraconsistency is required.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When it is stipulated that {cats} <are> {Animals}
>>>>>> When it is stipulated that {Animals} <are> {Living Things}
>>>>>> Then the complete proof of those is their stipulation.
>>>>>> AND {Cats} <are> {Living Things} is semantically entailed.
>>>>>
>>>>> For that sort of system paraconsistency is possible, depending on
>>>>> what else there is in the system.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic
>>>> Starting with a consistent set of basic facts (AKA axioms)
>>>> while only allowing semantic logical entailment thus
>>>> truth preserving operations does not seem to allow
>>>> any contradictions, thus paraconsistency.
>>>> Try to provide a concrete counter-example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your problem is you are making the error of assuming the concluion.
>>>
>>> You can't tell that you axioms ARE consistant excpet by proving that 
>>> the system itself is consistant, 
>>
>> Counter-factual. A system with a consistent set of basic
>> facts can possibly have inference rules that derive
>> inconsistency because these rules are less than perfectly
>> truth preserving.
>>
> 
> How do you know your axioms are consistant?
> 
> You don't seem to understand that basic problem, because you are just 
> too stupid.
> 
> You can't stipulate that the axioms are consistent.
> 

When tested against each other they have no
contradictions.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer