The truth about every expression of language that can be known
to be true on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is
that a lack of connection simply means untrue. The Tarski
Undefinability theorem and the 1931 Gödel incompleteness Theorem
never could understand that.
It seems simplistic except when understood to be saying the
same thing as this much more complex analysis. Please take a
quick peek at that paper. It gives me much more credibility.
Prolog detects [and rejects] pathological self reference in the Gödel sentence
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence
On 7/28/2024 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/28/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
The truth about every expression of language that can be known
to be true on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is
that a lack of connection simply means untrue. The Tarski
Undefinability theorem and the 1931 Gödel incompleteness Theorem
never could understand that.
It seems simplistic except when understood to be saying the
same thing as this much more complex analysis. Please take a
quick peek at that paper. It gives me much more credibility.
Prolog detects [and rejects] pathological self reference in the Gödel
sentence
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence
The problem is that moth "truths" aren't True by just the meaning of
their words.
{The truth about every expression of (formal or formalized
natural language) language that can be known to be true
on the basis of its meaning expressed in language}.
Corrects the analytic / synthetic distinction so that
it is unequivocal thus not subject to Quine's objections. https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/
Every truth that can be expressed in language is an analytic
truth, such as "some pediatricians are rich".
Every truth that cannot be expressed in language is a synthetic
truth such as the actual sound of dogs barking.
A lack up connection from an expression to its semantic
meaning within the objects of this language such as PA
simply means untrue in PA.
A connection of this same expression in another different
language within the objects of this language such as
meta-math means true in meta-math.
This same thing goes for Tarski's analysis of the Liar Paradox.
The formalized version of "This sentence is not true" is not
true in his theory.
The formalized version of:
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
is true in his metatheory.
The difference between PA and MM is that
The truth about every expression of language that can be known
to be true on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is
that a lack of connection simply means untrue.
On 7/30/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-29 00:44:41 +0000, olcott said:
The truth about every expression of language that can be known
to be true on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is
that a lack of connection simply means untrue.
Does that really mean something? If the significance of the lack of
connection is restricted to sentences where the connection exists
then it seems that you are talking about nothing.
https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/
I had to redefine the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic
distinction because Quine convinced most everyone that this
distinction does not exist.
Every expression x of (formal or natural) language L that
can be connected to the its semantic meaning in L by a
sequence of truth preserving operations is true in L.
The same thing applies to ~x making x false in L.
When x and ~x are both unprovable in L then x is not a
truth-bearer in L.
On 7/28/2024 7:44 PM, olcott wrote:
The truth about every expression of language that can be known
to be true on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is
that a lack of connection simply means untrue. The Tarski
Undefinability theorem and the 1931 Gödel incompleteness Theorem
never could understand that.
What I am doing is establishing the foundation of analytical
truth. Every expression of (formal or natural) language that
lacks a truth-maker connection to its meaning in this system
is simply untrue in this system. When G and ~G lack a truth-maker
in PA then G is simply not a truth-bearer in PA.
On 7/31/2024 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-30 13:40:55 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/30/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-29 00:44:41 +0000, olcott said:
The truth about every expression of language that can be known
to be true on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is
that a lack of connection simply means untrue.
Does that really mean something? If the significance of the lack of
connection is restricted to sentences where the connection exists
then it seems that you are talking about nothing.
https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/
I had to redefine the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic
distinction because Quine convinced most everyone that this
distinction does not exist.
You cannot redefine side wihout redefining the other side and the
distinction itself. Is your redefinition equivalent to the one
at https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/ or did
you find out that that distincition is not the one that exists?
Quine got totally confused by synonymity. He never understood
that the term {Bachelor} was defined in terms of
(~Married + Adult + Male).
On 8/2/2024 1:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-31 14:46:17 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/31/2024 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-30 13:40:55 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/30/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-29 00:44:41 +0000, olcott said:
The truth about every expression of language that can be known
to be true on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is
that a lack of connection simply means untrue.
Does that really mean something? If the significance of the lack of >>>>>> connection is restricted to sentences where the connection exists
then it seems that you are talking about nothing.
https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/
I had to redefine the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic
distinction because Quine convinced most everyone that this
distinction does not exist.
You cannot redefine side wihout redefining the other side and the
distinction itself. Is your redefinition equivalent to the one
at https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/ or did
you find out that that distincition is not the one that exists?
Quine got totally confused by synonymity. He never understood
that the term {Bachelor} was defined in terms of
(~Married + Adult + Male).
It is not a good idea to lie about other people.
When reqding Quine, you should ask yourself why your presentation
is much less convincing than Quine's.
Try and show the details of how I am incorrect.
On 8/3/2024 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-02 12:19:31 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/2/2024 1:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-31 14:46:17 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/31/2024 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-30 13:40:55 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/30/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-29 00:44:41 +0000, olcott said:
The truth about every expression of language that can be known >>>>>>>>> to be true on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >>>>>>>>> that a lack of connection simply means untrue.
Does that really mean something? If the significance of the lack of >>>>>>>> connection is restricted to sentences where the connection exists >>>>>>>> then it seems that you are talking about nothing.
https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/
I had to redefine the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic
distinction because Quine convinced most everyone that this
distinction does not exist.
You cannot redefine side wihout redefining the other side and the
distinction itself. Is your redefinition equivalent to the one
at https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/ or did
you find out that that distincition is not the one that exists?
Quine got totally confused by synonymity. He never understood
that the term {Bachelor} was defined in terms of
(~Married + Adult + Male).
It is not a good idea to lie about other people.
When reqding Quine, you should ask yourself why your presentation
is much less convincing than Quine's.
Try and show the details of how I am incorrect.
What you said (quoted above) about Quine is insulting and unjustified,
which alone is wrong.
The bottom line here is that every objection that he could
have possibly made is addressed by this augmentation to
the definition of {analytic truth}
*Original definition* of {Analytic truth}
Every expression of (formal or natural language) that is
true on the basis of its meaning...
*Is augmented by this*
within a system of reasoning is only true when this
expression is linked by truth preserving operations to
its meaning within this system using this language.
The superset of all of these systems that contains all
analytic truth is called {the accurate model of the actual world}.
On 8/3/2024 11:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/3/24 9:44 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/3/2024 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:And so you agree that Godel's G is True in PA.
On 2024-08-02 12:19:31 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/2/2024 1:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-31 14:46:17 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/31/2024 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-30 13:40:55 +0000, olcott said:Quine got totally confused by synonymity. He never understood
On 7/30/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-29 00:44:41 +0000, olcott said:
The truth about every expression of language that can be known >>>>>>>>>>> to be true on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >>>>>>>>>>> that a lack of connection simply means untrue.
Does that really mean something? If the significance of the >>>>>>>>>> lack of
connection is restricted to sentences where the connection exists >>>>>>>>>> then it seems that you are talking about nothing.
https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/
I had to redefine the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic >>>>>>>>> distinction because Quine convinced most everyone that this
distinction does not exist.
You cannot redefine side wihout redefining the other side and the >>>>>>>> distinction itself. Is your redefinition equivalent to the one >>>>>>>> at https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/ or did >>>>>>>> you find out that that distincition is not the one that exists? >>>>>>>
that the term {Bachelor} was defined in terms of
(~Married + Adult + Male).
It is not a good idea to lie about other people.
When reqding Quine, you should ask yourself why your presentation
is much less convincing than Quine's.
Try and show the details of how I am incorrect.
What you said (quoted above) about Quine is insulting and unjustified, >>>> which alone is wrong.
The bottom line here is that every objection that he could
have possibly made is addressed by this augmentation to
the definition of {analytic truth}
*Original definition* of {Analytic truth}
Every expression of (formal or natural language) that is
true on the basis of its meaning...
*Is augmented by this*
within a system of reasoning is only true when this
expression is linked by truth preserving operations to
its meaning within this system using this language.
The superset of all of these systems that contains all
analytic truth is called {the accurate model of the actual world}.
It seems that you are the only one that believes that
there are any sequence of truth preserving operations
from G to the axioms of PA showing that G is true in PA.
On 8/3/2024 12:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/3/24 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/3/2024 11:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/3/24 9:44 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/3/2024 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:And so you agree that Godel's G is True in PA.
On 2024-08-02 12:19:31 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/2/2024 1:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-31 14:46:17 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/31/2024 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-30 13:40:55 +0000, olcott said:Quine got totally confused by synonymity. He never understood >>>>>>>>> that the term {Bachelor} was defined in terms of
On 7/30/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-29 00:44:41 +0000, olcott said:
The truth about every expression of language that can be known >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be true on the basis of its meaning expressed in
language is
that a lack of connection simply means untrue.
Does that really mean something? If the significance of the >>>>>>>>>>>> lack of
connection is restricted to sentences where the connection >>>>>>>>>>>> exists
then it seems that you are talking about nothing.
https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/
I had to redefine the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic >>>>>>>>>>> distinction because Quine convinced most everyone that this >>>>>>>>>>> distinction does not exist.
You cannot redefine side wihout redefining the other side and the >>>>>>>>>> distinction itself. Is your redefinition equivalent to the one >>>>>>>>>> at https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/ or did >>>>>>>>>> you find out that that distincition is not the one that exists? >>>>>>>>>
(~Married + Adult + Male).
It is not a good idea to lie about other people.
When reqding Quine, you should ask yourself why your presentation >>>>>>>> is much less convincing than Quine's.
Try and show the details of how I am incorrect.
What you said (quoted above) about Quine is insulting and
unjustified,
which alone is wrong.
The bottom line here is that every objection that he could
have possibly made is addressed by this augmentation to
the definition of {analytic truth}
*Original definition* of {Analytic truth}
Every expression of (formal or natural language) that is
true on the basis of its meaning...
*Is augmented by this*
within a system of reasoning is only true when this
expression is linked by truth preserving operations to
its meaning within this system using this language.
The superset of all of these systems that contains all
analytic truth is called {the accurate model of the actual world}.
It seems that you are the only one that believes that
there are any sequence of truth preserving operations
from G to the axioms of PA showing that G is true in PA.
You are sorely mistaken in that beleif, but that error is caused by
your ignorance of the topic.
Anyone who understands Godel's proof would understand that fact.
Note, you have the sentence backwards, the sequence is from the axioms
to G, not G to the axioms.
That just shows you don't understand how to do logical proofs.
We know what we can demonstrate by a sequence from the axioms to the
statement.
We can form an actual proof for each individual number, but just
cranking the Relationship (which will always have a finite number of
steps) showing that this number does not satisfy the relationship.
By just chaining the infinite set of these proofs for every number, we
get that infinite chain of steps that establish G as true.
Ah I see now.
There is not a proof with an infinite sequence of steps
that proves G in PA as you claimed. Instead an infinite
set of proofs fails to prove G in PA.
Yet that would be back to the simple version of G that
merely claims to be unprovable in PA. Not some other
different highly abstract relationship that you had
been claiming.
Do you understand that no one needs to have any
understanding of the proof to refute it when they
can show that its conclusion is incorrect?
I may not have done it correctly yet any proof can be
refuted by simply showing that its conclusion is wrong
with no need to even understand any of the steps.
On 8/3/2024 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/3/24 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/3/2024 12:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/3/24 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/3/2024 11:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/3/24 9:44 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/3/2024 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:And so you agree that Godel's G is True in PA.
On 2024-08-02 12:19:31 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/2/2024 1:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-31 14:46:17 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/31/2024 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-30 13:40:55 +0000, olcott said:Quine got totally confused by synonymity. He never understood >>>>>>>>>>> that the term {Bachelor} was defined in terms of
On 7/30/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-29 00:44:41 +0000, olcott said:
The truth about every expression of language that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known
to be true on the basis of its meaning expressed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language is
that a lack of connection simply means untrue.
Does that really mean something? If the significance of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the lack of
connection is restricted to sentences where the connection >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists
then it seems that you are talking about nothing.
https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> I had to redefine the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic >>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction because Quine convinced most everyone that this >>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction does not exist.
You cannot redefine side wihout redefining the other side >>>>>>>>>>>> and the
distinction itself. Is your redefinition equivalent to the one >>>>>>>>>>>> at https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/ or >>>>>>>>>>>> did
you find out that that distincition is not the one that exists? >>>>>>>>>>>
(~Married + Adult + Male).
It is not a good idea to lie about other people.
When reqding Quine, you should ask yourself why your presentation >>>>>>>>>> is much less convincing than Quine's.
Try and show the details of how I am incorrect.
What you said (quoted above) about Quine is insulting and
unjustified,
which alone is wrong.
The bottom line here is that every objection that he could
have possibly made is addressed by this augmentation to
the definition of {analytic truth}
*Original definition* of {Analytic truth}
Every expression of (formal or natural language) that is
true on the basis of its meaning...
*Is augmented by this*
within a system of reasoning is only true when this
expression is linked by truth preserving operations to
its meaning within this system using this language.
The superset of all of these systems that contains all
analytic truth is called {the accurate model of the actual world}. >>>>>>>
It seems that you are the only one that believes that
there are any sequence of truth preserving operations
from G to the axioms of PA showing that G is true in PA.
You are sorely mistaken in that beleif, but that error is caused by
your ignorance of the topic.
Anyone who understands Godel's proof would understand that fact.
Note, you have the sentence backwards, the sequence is from the
axioms to G, not G to the axioms.
That just shows you don't understand how to do logical proofs.
We know what we can demonstrate by a sequence from the axioms to the
statement.
We can form an actual proof for each individual number, but just
cranking the Relationship (which will always have a finite number of
steps) showing that this number does not satisfy the relationship.
By just chaining the infinite set of these proofs for every number,
we get that infinite chain of steps that establish G as true.
Ah I see now.
There is not a proof with an infinite sequence of steps
that proves G in PA as you claimed. Instead an infinite
set of proofs fails to prove G in PA.
There is no such thing as a proof with an infinite number of steps.
That is like talking about a triangle with 5 sides.
The infinite sequence of steps shows that G is true, as it shows that
no number exists that statisfies the given PRR, which is exactly what
G claims.
That is not a sequence of steps in PA
It is an infinite set of finite sequences of steps in PA.
Your misuse of the word "prove" just shows your utter ignorance of
what you are talking about.
That was my mistake.
The infinite set of proofs DOES estabilish that G is true, as G is a
statment that claims that no number satisfied that relationship.
Having a proof for every possible that it doesn't satisfiy that
relationship, shows that G is in fact true, as no number can exist
that falsifies G.
Yet PA is incapable of evaluating this.
I don't think that PA can even represent more than
one proof at a time, so it is no sequence of steps in PA.
Yet that would be back to the simple version of G that
merely claims to be unprovable in PA. Not some other
different highly abstract relationship that you had
been claiming.
There is no such G, except in your imagination.
*Gödel stated that this was his intention*
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts
its own unprovability. 15 ... (Gödel 1931:40-41)
Do you understand that no one needs to have any
understanding of the proof to refute it when they
can show that its conclusion is incorrect?
Doesn't work that way. Since your "proof" that it is wrong is based on
your own assumptions, all you prove is that your assumptions are untrue.
I may not have done it correctly yet any proof can be
refuted by simply showing that its conclusion is wrong
with no need to even understand any of the steps.
On 8/3/2024 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-02 12:19:31 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/2/2024 1:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-31 14:46:17 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/31/2024 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-30 13:40:55 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/30/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-29 00:44:41 +0000, olcott said:
The truth about every expression of language that can be known >>>>>>>>> to be true on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >>>>>>>>> that a lack of connection simply means untrue.
Does that really mean something? If the significance of the lack of >>>>>>>> connection is restricted to sentences where the connection exists >>>>>>>> then it seems that you are talking about nothing.
https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/
I had to redefine the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic
distinction because Quine convinced most everyone that this
distinction does not exist.
You cannot redefine side wihout redefining the other side and the
distinction itself. Is your redefinition equivalent to the one
at https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/ or did
you find out that that distincition is not the one that exists?
Quine got totally confused by synonymity. He never understood
that the term {Bachelor} was defined in terms of
(~Married + Adult + Male).
It is not a good idea to lie about other people.
When reqding Quine, you should ask yourself why your presentation
is much less convincing than Quine's.
Try and show the details of how I am incorrect.
What you said (quoted above) about Quine is insulting and unjustified,
which alone is wrong.
The bottom line here is that every objection that he could
have possibly made is addressed by this augmentation to
the definition of {analytic truth}
*Original definition* of {Analytic truth}
Every expression of (formal or natural language) that is
true on the basis of its meaning...
On 8/4/2024 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-03 13:44:25 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/3/2024 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-02 12:19:31 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/2/2024 1:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-31 14:46:17 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/31/2024 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-30 13:40:55 +0000, olcott said:Quine got totally confused by synonymity. He never understood
On 7/30/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-29 00:44:41 +0000, olcott said:
The truth about every expression of language that can be known >>>>>>>>>>> to be true on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >>>>>>>>>>> that a lack of connection simply means untrue.
Does that really mean something? If the significance of the lack of >>>>>>>>>> connection is restricted to sentences where the connection exists >>>>>>>>>> then it seems that you are talking about nothing.
https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/
I had to redefine the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic >>>>>>>>> distinction because Quine convinced most everyone that this
distinction does not exist.
You cannot redefine side wihout redefining the other side and the >>>>>>>> distinction itself. Is your redefinition equivalent to the one >>>>>>>> at https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/ or did >>>>>>>> you find out that that distincition is not the one that exists? >>>>>>>
that the term {Bachelor} was defined in terms of
(~Married + Adult + Male).
It is not a good idea to lie about other people.
When reqding Quine, you should ask yourself why your presentation
is much less convincing than Quine's.
Try and show the details of how I am incorrect.
What you said (quoted above) about Quine is insulting and unjustified, >>>> which alone is wrong.
The bottom line here is that every objection that he could
have possibly made is addressed by this augmentation to
the definition of {analytic truth}
*Original definition* of {Analytic truth}
Every expression of (formal or natural language) that is
true on the basis of its meaning...
So what is wrong with Quines opinion that the truth of "A bachelor
is not married" comes from the meaning of the words?
If he said that then he would be saying that he has no
objection to the {Analytic/Synthetic} distinction. He is
famous for having an objection to this.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 22:16:31 |
| Calls: | 12,105 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,126 |