On 12/23/23 11:59 AM, olcott wrote:

*This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
Most importantly analytical truthmaker theory must be understood.

*This is true by definition* Within the body of analytical truth of the analytic/synthetic distinction every element of the body of analytic knowledge (BOAK) is true entirely on the basis of its connection to the semantic meanings that make it true.

Right, and the body of analytical truth accepts that this connection is
allowed to be infinite in length. Analytical KNOWLEDGE requires the
connection to be finite in length, so Analytical Truth accepts that
there can be TRUTHS that might not be KNOWABLE.

This proves that Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness and Tarski's Undefinability Theorem cannot apply to the body of analytical knowledge (BOAK). Lacking
this connection excludes an expression from the BOAK, thus undecidable expressions cannot exist within the BOAK.

No, the BOAK knows that there are TRUTHS in the BOAT that can't be in BOAK.

So, if you mean there can;t be something that is KNOWN that can't be
proven, yes, you are right, but the analytical system based on all
knowledge includes the analitcal rules to allow other statements to be
TRUE (even if not Provable), so your "BOAK" isn't complete,

Now, if you mean a system that has just every statement in BOAK but NO
rules to allow determination of new truths, such a system is absoultely WORTHLESS.

True(x) is defined by the above, within the BOAK thus refuting Tarski.
Every element of the BOAK has a provability connection to its semantic meanings truthmaker within the BOAK thus refuting both Tarski and Gödel
that say this cannot correctly and consistently accomplished.

But if your system BOAK doesn't allow any determination of new Truths,
then it doesn't meet the requirement of Tarski to apply.

In fact, it seems you are trying to define Logic as a dead subject, as
nothing new can be ever known.

*This is similar to Wittgenstein* https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/23/23 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/23/2023 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:

*This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
Most importantly analytical truthmaker theory must be understood.

*This is true by definition* Within the body of analytical truth of the
analytic/synthetic distinction every element of the body of analytic
knowledge (BOAK) is true entirely on the basis of its connection to the
semantic meanings that make it true.

This proves that Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness and Tarski's Undefinability
Theorem cannot apply to the body of analytical knowledge (BOAK). Lacking
this connection excludes an expression from the BOAK, thus undecidable
expressions cannot exist within the BOAK.

True(x) is defined by the above, within the BOAK thus refuting Tarski.
Every element of the BOAK has a provability connection to its semantic
meanings truthmaker within the BOAK thus refuting both Tarski and Gödel
that say this cannot correctly and consistently accomplished.

*This is similar to Wittgenstein*
https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

To the extent that truths require infinite proofs such as
the Goldbach conjecture they are excluded from the BOAK
because their truth value remains unknown thus are not knowledge.
We know that the GC is true or false, yet do not know which.

So, are you doing this by saying that your logic system can not ever
prove more statements (in which case it is worthless), or that your
logic system has redefined the rules of logic, at which point your BOAK includes statements that it can no longer prove based on its own logic?

Anything that cannot be proven or refuted from the axioms of
BOAK is defined as not a member of BOAK. This prevents
the Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness and Tarski's Undefinability
from applying to the BOAK.

What are the "axioms" of BOAK?

Is it ALL of the current "Body of Analytical Knowledge", at which point
you are just saying you have a knowledge system that can not prove
anything that isn't an axiom, and thus is "worthless" for expanding
knowledge, or do you establish only a limited set of Axioms, and run
into the issue that some of the BOAK can't be proven by your restricted
logic, because they were proven with the wider logic?

You can't restrict the logic, and at the same time accept what the
broader logic proved, except by accepting everything as an axiom.

So, you are just showing the fundamental issue with your theory.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/23/23 2:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/23/2023 1:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On Saturday, December 23, 2023 at 9:00:01 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:

*This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
Most importantly analytical truthmaker theory must be understood.

*This is true by definition* Within the body of analytical truth of the
analytic/synthetic distinction every element of the body of analytic
knowledge (BOAK) is true entirely on the basis of its connection to the
semantic meanings that make it true.

This proves that Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness and Tarski's Undefinability >>> Theorem cannot apply to the body of analytical knowledge (BOAK). Lacking >>> this connection excludes an expression from the BOAK, thus undecidable
expressions cannot exist within the BOAK.

True(x) is defined by the above, within the BOAK thus refuting Tarski.
Every element of the BOAK has a provability connection to its semantic
meanings truthmaker within the BOAK thus refuting both Tarski and Gödel >>> that say this cannot correctly and consistently accomplished.

*This is similar to Wittgenstein*
https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Well, no, because we still have simply mathematical objects
even if it's just their forms.

Wittgenstein is kind of a nut, we call him "our anti-Plato".  The
Tractactus Logico-Philosophicus is pretty great, then though
the Blue and Brown books are more his existentialism than logic.

Since what I specified is proven totally true entirely one the basis
of the meaning is its words disagreement is necessarily incorrect.

Which isn't a "proof" and not something you have done.

(1) If you don't know what analytical truthmaker theory is then you lack
the mandatory prerequisites.

Analytical truthmakers are the subset of truthmakers that only apply to expressions that are proven to be completely true entirely on the basis
of their semantic meaning.

(2) *This is true by definition* outlines the gist of (1).
If an expression is unprovable from the axioms of BOAK then
it is untrue within the BOAK.

But BOAK isn't a "System" but just a collection of facts.

If you include in BOAK the operations that we "KNOW" to be true, then
from the BOAK we can see that there exist statements that aren't given
as true in BOAK, but could be true from its operations, and in fact are
able to prove that there ARE statements that are True under the
Truthmakers of BOAK and the allowed operation of BOAK but are not
provable by it,

This is exactly same thing that Wittgenstein said and I know
that Wittgenstein is correct on the basis that I independently
derived the exact same things long before I ever heard of him.

Except he didn't understand that by defining true are only what is
provable, a lot of things that we consider true today must become
unknow, or we get a system that can prove at least one contradiction, destroying the meaning of True and False.

You, because you don't understand what you are talking about, are just repeating his mistake. Which, if I am remembering correctly where this statement came from, is something he might have realized at a later
point in time, but you can't seem to understand that.

The Fallacy of Proof by Authority destroies your claim. Until you can
actually show how you are going to use YOUR system (and not just say it
is sort of like someone else, unless you accept ALL they are using) you
haven't shown anything but a poorly defined system of logic that can't
be shown to actaully be able to prove anything.

In other words, something worthless.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/23/23 5:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:

On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:

*This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*

Then don't post it to comp.theory.

This also equally applies to computability.
Some of the basic concepts of computability
have incoherence hard-wired into them.

Name them.

For example three computer scientists essentially
agree that the halting problem is essentially
a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
They use different yet equivalent terminology.

I suspect that you don't understand what they are saying,

And, unless you can actually PROVE what you are saying (that the halting problem is actually self-contradictory) you are just proving you are
using the fallacy of authority.

The lead author of these three specifically agrees
that the halting problem <is> an incorrect question.

I don't think so.

If seems more likely that you are just a stupid liar.

Your arguements HAVE been totally discredited, and the one authority you
named, when we look at the actual words used, show your misundestanding
of what he said, and other conversations with him have proved thus.

You are just proving that you don't actually know how to use logic.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/24/23 10:04 AM, olcott wrote:

On 12/24/2023 4:42 AM, immibis wrote:

On 12/23/23 23:21, olcott wrote:

On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:

On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:

*This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*

Then don't post it to comp.theory.

This also equally applies to computability.
Some of the basic concepts of computability
have incoherence hard-wired into them.

For example three computer scientists essentially
agree that the halting problem is essentially
a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.

Anyone can find three idiots.

Zero idiots can become PhD computer science professors.

No, there are PLENTY of idiots that become professors, even with PhDs.

I suspect you haven't been close enough to a PhD program to understand
what it actually means. It CAN be a major achievement, but without
seeing the work done for it, it can also be essentially meaningless.

I guess you aren't smart enough to know that.

After all, the old saying is those that can't do, teach, pointing out
that SOME people become teachers because they can't actually do the work
well enough to actually get results.

Of course, since you refuse to actually reveal who most of these are, or
what they ACTUALLY agreed to, you have ZERO actual athorites that you
are hanging your fallacy of proof by athority on, showing how little you actually understand how things work.

And, we actually don't need any idiot PhD Computer Science Professors,
we just need ONE Idiot trying to claim what they say supports his
theories, when he has already shown form one example that he is actually incapable of understanding what the words actually mean.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)