• Re: Concise rebuttal of incompleteness and undecidability

    From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Jun 3 10:23:14 2024
    On 2024-06-02 17:36:57 +0000, olcott said:

    Because of Quine's paper: https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html most philosophers have been confused into believing that there is no such
    thing as expressions of language that are {true on the basis of their meaning}.

    The unique contribution I have made to this is that the semantic meaning
    of these expressions is always specified by other expressions. When we
    can derive x or ~x by applying truth preserving operations to a set of semantic meanings then this perfectly aligns with Wittgenstein's concise critique of Gödel: https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

    Unless P or ~P has been proved in Russell's system P has no truth value
    and thus cannot be a proposition according to the law of the excluded
    middle.

    As Richard keeps pointing out:
    Sometimes this "proof" may require an infinite sequence of steps.

    The above is not a reuttal of anything. It does not even claim to
    rebut anything, and does not show any counter proof of anyting.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Jun 3 17:03:09 2024
    On 2024-06-03 13:06:01 +0000, olcott said:

    On 6/3/2024 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-06-02 17:36:57 +0000, olcott said:

    Because of Quine's paper: https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html most
    philosophers have been confused into believing that there is no such
    thing as expressions of language that are {true on the basis of their
    meaning}.

    The unique contribution I have made to this is that the semantic meaning >>> of these expressions is always specified by other expressions. When we
    can derive x or ~x by applying truth preserving operations to a set of
    semantic meanings then this perfectly aligns with Wittgenstein's concise >>> critique of Gödel: https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

    Unless P or ~P has been proved in Russell's system P has no truth value
    and thus cannot be a proposition according to the law of the excluded
    middle.

    As Richard keeps pointing out:
    Sometimes this "proof" may require an infinite sequence of steps.

    The above is not a reuttal of anything. It does not even claim to
    rebut anything, and does not show any counter proof of anyting.


    *Three laws of logic apply to all propositions*
    ¬(p ∧ ¬p) Law of non-contradiction
    (p ∨ ¬p) Law of excluded middle
    p = p Law of identity

    It provides the foundation for True(L,x) where
    False(L,x) is defined as True(L,~x).

    Once we have this then all undecidable propositions
    are neither True nor False and are rejected by the
    Law of excluded middle.

    Nice to see that you agree with my comment to the extent that
    you feel safe to change the subect.

    --
    Mikko

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