On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding
how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works.
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself,
would be relevant to Quine's topic?
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that matters
to me is that I have defined expressions of language that are
{true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language}
so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points.
That does not justify lying.
I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
topic with any distraction that you can find.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the
expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker.
On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding
how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works.
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself,
would be relevant to Quine's topic?
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that matters
to me is that I have defined expressions of language that are
{true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language}
so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points.
That does not justify lying.
I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
topic with any distraction that you can find.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the
expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker.
No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of existence of an
algrithm makes something computable. You can't compute if you con't
know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm.
There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from
the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal
model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is
how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.
On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding
how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works.
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself,
would be relevant to Quine's topic?
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that matters
to me is that I have defined expressions of language that are
{true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language}
so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points.
That does not justify lying.
I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
topic with any distraction that you can find.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the
expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker.
No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of existence of an
algrithm makes something computable. You can't compute if you con't
know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm.
There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from
the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal
model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is
how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.
Nice to see that you con't disagree.
When the idea that I presented is fully understood
it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.
My above idea is epistemological. Simply ignoring
epistemology does not make it go away.
On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding
how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works.
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself,
would be relevant to Quine's topic?
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that matters
to me is that I have defined expressions of language that are
{true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language}
so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points.
That does not justify lying.
I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
topic with any distraction that you can find.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the
expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker.
No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of existence of an
algrithm makes something computable. You can't compute if you con't
know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm.
There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from
the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal
model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is
how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.
Nice to see that you con't disagree.
When the idea that I presented is fully understood
it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.
My above idea is epistemological. Simply ignoring
epistemology does not make it go away.
On 8/13/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-12 13:44:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding
how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works.
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself,
would be relevant to Quine's topic?
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that matters >>>>>>>>>> to me is that I have defined expressions of language that are >>>>>>>>>> {true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language} >>>>>>>>>> so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points.
That does not justify lying.
I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
topic with any distraction that you can find.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the
expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker.
No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of existence of an >>>>>> algrithm makes something computable. You can't compute if you con't >>>>>> know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm.
There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from
the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal
model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is
how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.
Nice to see that you con't disagree.
When the idea that I presented is fully understood
it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.
If you can't prove atl least that you have an interesting idea
nobody is going to stody it enough to understood.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition
is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
Thus understanding the compositional meaning of my words is
complete proof that they are true.
On 8/15/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-13 12:43:16 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/13/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-12 13:44:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding >>>>>>>>>>>> how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works.
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself, >>>>>>>>>>> would be relevant to Quine's topic?
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that matters >>>>>>>>>>>> to me is that I have defined expressions of language that are >>>>>>>>>>>> {true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language} >>>>>>>>>>>> so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points. >>>>>>>>>>>That does not justify lying.
I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
topic with any distraction that you can find.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the
expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker.
No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of existence of an >>>>>>>> algrithm makes something computable. You can't compute if you con't >>>>>>>> know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm.
There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from
the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal
model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is
how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.
Nice to see that you con't disagree.
When the idea that I presented is fully understood
it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.
If you can't prove atl least that you have an interesting idea
nobody is going to stody it enough to understood.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition
is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
Self-evident propositions are uninteresting.
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
On 8/16/2024 6:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-16 11:02:07 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/15/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-13 12:43:16 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/13/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-12 13:44:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of existence of an >>>>>>>>>> algrithm makes something computable. You can't compute if you con't
On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself, >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be relevant to Quine's topic?
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>> how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that matters >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me is that I have defined expressions of language that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> {true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language} >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points. >>>>>>>>>>>>>That does not justify lying.
I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
topic with any distraction that you can find.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines >>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the
expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker. >>>>>>>>>>
know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm. >>>>>>>>>>
There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from >>>>>>>>> the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal >>>>>>>>> model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is >>>>>>>>> how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.
Nice to see that you con't disagree.
When the idea that I presented is fully understood
it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.
If you can't prove atl least that you have an interesting idea
nobody is going to stody it enough to understood.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition
is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning >>>>> without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
Self-evident propositions are uninteresting.
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
No, it does not. In every consisten system has some x that is
untrue in the above sense. That does not make the negation of
x true in the same sense.
Whenever there is no sequence of truth preserving from
x or ~x to its meaning in L of F then x has no truth-maker
in F and x not a truth-bearer in F. We never get to x is
undecidable in F.
On 8/15/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-13 12:43:16 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/13/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-12 13:44:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding >>>>>>>>>>>> how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works.
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself, >>>>>>>>>>> would be relevant to Quine's topic?
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that matters >>>>>>>>>>>> to me is that I have defined expressions of language that are >>>>>>>>>>>> {true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language} >>>>>>>>>>>> so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points. >>>>>>>>>>>That does not justify lying.
I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
topic with any distraction that you can find.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the
expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker.
No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of existence of an >>>>>>>> algrithm makes something computable. You can't compute if you >>>>>>>> con't
know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm.
There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from
the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal
model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is
how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.
Nice to see that you con't disagree.
When the idea that I presented is fully understood
it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.
If you can't prove atl least that you have an interesting idea
nobody is going to stody it enough to understood.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition
is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
Self-evident propositions are uninteresting.
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
Thus understanding the compositional meaning of my words is
complete proof that they are true.
Often your intended compositional meanings seem to differ from the
real compositional meanings as defined by dictionaries, grammar
books, and native speakers' intuitions.
Epistemology is not relevant to the clarity communication. Grammar
of Common Language, including compositional semantics, is.
This is how compositional semantics is formalized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/15/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-13 12:43:16 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/13/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-12 13:44:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of existence >>>>>>>>>> of an
On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself, >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be relevant to Quine's topic?
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>> how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that matters >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me is that I have defined expressions of language that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> {true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language} >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points. >>>>>>>>>>>>>That does not justify lying.
I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
topic with any distraction that you can find.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines >>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the
expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker. >>>>>>>>>>
algrithm makes something computable. You can't compute if you >>>>>>>>>> con't
know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm. >>>>>>>>>>
There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from >>>>>>>>> the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal >>>>>>>>> model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is >>>>>>>>> how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.
Nice to see that you con't disagree.
When the idea that I presented is fully understood
it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.
If you can't prove atl least that you have an interesting idea
nobody is going to stody it enough to understood.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition
is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning >>>>> without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
Self-evident propositions are uninteresting.
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/15/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-13 12:43:16 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/13/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-12 13:44:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of existence >>>>>>>>>>>> of an
On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be relevant to Quine's topic?
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mattersThat does not justify lying.
to me is that I have defined expressions of language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are
{true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
topic with any distraction that you can find.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines >>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines >>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic >>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction.
This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the >>>>>>>>>>>>> expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker. >>>>>>>>>>>>
algrithm makes something computable. You can't compute if >>>>>>>>>>>> you con't
know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm. >>>>>>>>>>>>
There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from >>>>>>>>>>> the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal >>>>>>>>>>> model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is >>>>>>>>>>> how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.
Nice to see that you con't disagree.
When the idea that I presented is fully understood
it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.
If you can't prove atl least that you have an interesting idea >>>>>>>> nobody is going to stody it enough to understood.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition >>>>>>> is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its
meaning
without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
Self-evident propositions are uninteresting.
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are totally
reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
incoherent.
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/15/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-13 12:43:16 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/13/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-12 13:44:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence of an
On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be relevant to Quine's topic?
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mattersThat does not justify lying.
to me is that I have defined expressions of language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are
{true on the basis of their meaning expressed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language}
so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
It looks like you only want to dodge the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic with any distraction that you can find.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction.
This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
algrithm makes something computable. You can't compute if >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you con't
know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from >>>>>>>>>>>>> the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal >>>>>>>>>>>>> model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is >>>>>>>>>>>>> how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.
Nice to see that you con't disagree.
When the idea that I presented is fully understood
it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.
If you can't prove atl least that you have an interesting idea >>>>>>>>>> nobody is going to stody it enough to understood.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition >>>>>>>>> is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its >>>>>>>>> meaning
without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
Self-evident propositions are uninteresting.
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are totally
reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. They
created a new definition of what a set was,
That <is> what I just said.
and then showed what that implies, since by changing the definitions, all the old work of set theory has to be thrown out, and then we see what can be established.
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/15/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-13 12:43:16 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/13/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-12 13:44:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence of an
On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be relevant to Quine's topic?
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mattersThat does not justify lying.
to me is that I have defined expressions of language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are
{true on the basis of their meaning expressed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language}
so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
It looks like you only want to dodge the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic with any distraction that you can find.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction.
This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
algrithm makes something computable. You can't compute if >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you con't
know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from >>>>>>>>>>>>> the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal >>>>>>>>>>>>> model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is >>>>>>>>>>>>> how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.
Nice to see that you con't disagree.
When the idea that I presented is fully understood
it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.
If you can't prove atl least that you have an interesting idea >>>>>>>>>> nobody is going to stody it enough to understood.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition >>>>>>>>> is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its >>>>>>>>> meaning
without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
Self-evident propositions are uninteresting.
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are totally
reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. They
created a new definition of what a set was, and then showed what that
implies, since by changing the definitions, all the old work of set
theory has to be thrown out, and then we see what can be established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All
of these are the effects of the change of the
definition of a set.
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system >>>>>>>>> F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability" >>>>>>>
did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are
totally reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. They
created a new definition of what a set was, and then showed what
that implies, since by changing the definitions, all the old work of
set theory has to be thrown out, and then we see what can be
established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All
of these are the effects of the change of the
definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could do as
basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, that ZFC
is built on first-order logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox.
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set can not be
a member of itself, and that we can count the members of a set.
If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change
or was not required to defeat RP.
Axiom Schema of Specification: We can build a sub-set from another set
and a set of conditions. (Which implies the existance of the empty set)
Axiom of Pairing: Given two sets, we can make a set that contains the
two sets.
Axiom of Union: Given two (or more) sets, we can make a set of the
elements that exist in any of the sets.
Axiom schema of Replacement: We can build a set from another set and a
mapping function
Axiom of Infiity: We can make a set with a countable infinite number
of members.
Axiom of Power Set: There exist a set that contains every subset of
another set.
To move from ZF to ZFC we add:
Axiom of Choice/Well Ordering:
So, they did more that just "Define what a set is"
On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language >>>>>>>>>>> that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection >>>>>>>>>>> (through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system >>>>>>>>>>> F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability" >>>>>>>>>
did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are
totally reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. They
created a new definition of what a set was, and then showed what
that implies, since by changing the definitions, all the old work
of set theory has to be thrown out, and then we see what can be
established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All
of these are the effects of the change of the
definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could do as
basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, that ZFC
is built on first-order logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox.
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set can not
be a member of itself, and that we can count the members of a set.
If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change
or was not required to defeat RP.
but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, they needed to define
the full set.
I think you problem is you just don't understand how formal logic works.
I think at a higher level of abstraction.
All that they did is just like I said they redefined
what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of details of
how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement
saying that all they did is redefine a set.
My redefinition of formal system does this exact same
sort of thing in the same way. I do change the term
{logical operation} to {truth preserving operation}.
Other than that the only thing that is changed is
the notion of {formal system}. I don't even change
this very much.
On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of
"undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are >>>>>>>>>>>> totally reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. >>>>>>>>>> They created a new definition of what a set was, and then
showed what that implies, since by changing the definitions, >>>>>>>>>> all the old work of set theory has to be thrown out, and then >>>>>>>>>> we see what can be established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All
of these are the effects of the change of the
definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could do >>>>>>>> as basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, that >>>>>>>> ZFC is built on first-order logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox.
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set can >>>>>>>> not be a member of itself, and that we can count the members of >>>>>>>> a set.
If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change
or was not required to defeat RP.
but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, they needed to
define the full set.
I think you problem is you just don't understand how formal logic
works.
I think at a higher level of abstraction.
No, you don't, unless you mean by that not bothering to make sure
the details work.
You can't do fundamental logic in the abstract.
That is just called fluff and bluster.
All that they did is just like I said they redefined
what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of details of
how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement
saying that all they did is redefine a set.
Showing the sort of thing YOU need to do to redefine logic
I said that ZFC redefined the notion of a set to get rid of RP.
You show the steps of how ZFC redefined a set as your rebuttal.
No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is just a LIE.
They developed a full formal system.
They did nothing besides change the definition of
a set and the result of this was a new formal system.
On 8/16/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language >>>>>>>>>>>>> that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>> in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection >>>>>>>>>>>>> (through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system >>>>>>>>>>>>> F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F >>>>>>>>>>>>> x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of
"undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are >>>>>>>>>> totally reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel.
They created a new definition of what a set was, and then showed >>>>>>>> what that implies, since by changing the definitions, all the
old work of set theory has to be thrown out, and then we see
what can be established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All
of these are the effects of the change of the
definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could do as >>>>>> basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, that
ZFC is built on first-order logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox.
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set can
not be a member of itself, and that we can count the members of a
set.
If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change
or was not required to defeat RP.
but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, they needed to define
the full set.
I think you problem is you just don't understand how formal logic
works.
I think at a higher level of abstraction.
No, you don't, unless you mean by that not bothering to make sure the
details work.
You can't do fundamental logic in the abstract.
That is just called fluff and bluster.
All that they did is just like I said they redefined
what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of details of
how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement
saying that all they did is redefine a set.
Showing the sort of thing YOU need to do to redefine logic
I said that ZFC redefined the notion of a set to get rid of RP.
You show the steps of how ZFC redefined a set as your rebuttal.
My redefinition of formal system does this exact same
sort of thing in the same way. I do change the term
{logical operation} to {truth preserving operation}.
Other than that the only thing that is changed is
the notion of {formal system}. I don't even change
this very much.
Then where is your paper showing what comes out of your ideas?
No sentence writing a paper when everyone assumes
that all of the details are wrong before I ever say them.
So, you change the term, and thus EMPTY the system of proved results.
What have you done to refill it?
Sounds like you have an architectural sketch of a building, and are
asking people to buy units and move in.
Nope, doesn't work that way, you need to build the system first, not
just have a rough sketch of what you think it should look like.
Seems like you are just being a scammer.
On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 10:45 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As with all math and logic we have expressions of language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this same language. Unless expression x has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are totally reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer >>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. >>>>>>>>>>>> They created a new definition of what a set was, and then >>>>>>>>>>>> showed what that implies, since by changing the definitions, >>>>>>>>>>>> all the old work of set theory has to be thrown out, and >>>>>>>>>>>> then we see what can be established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All
of these are the effects of the change of the
definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could >>>>>>>>>> do as basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, >>>>>>>>>> that ZFC is built on first-order logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox.
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set >>>>>>>>>> can not be a member of itself, and that we can count the
members of a set.
If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change >>>>>>>>> or was not required to defeat RP.
but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, they needed to
define the full set.
I think you problem is you just don't understand how formal
logic works.
I think at a higher level of abstraction.
No, you don't, unless you mean by that not bothering to make sure
the details work.
You can't do fundamental logic in the abstract.
That is just called fluff and bluster.
All that they did is just like I said they redefined
what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of details of
how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement
saying that all they did is redefine a set.
Showing the sort of thing YOU need to do to redefine logic
I said that ZFC redefined the notion of a set to get rid of RP.
You show the steps of how ZFC redefined a set as your rebuttal.
No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is just a LIE.
They developed a full formal system.
They did nothing besides change the definition of
a set and the result of this was a new formal system.
I guess you consider all the papers they wrote describing the effects
of their definitions "nothing"
Not at all and you know this.
One change had many effects yet was still one change.
On 8/17/2024 11:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 10:45 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is just a LIE. >>>>>>>>
On 8/16/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As with all math and logic we have expressions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this same language. Unless expression x has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of F
x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
If you want to do that, you need to start at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basics are totally reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fraenkel. They created a new definition of what a set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was, and then showed what that implies, since by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changing the definitions, all the old work of set theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has to be thrown out, and then we see what can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All
of these are the effects of the change of the
definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> could do as basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being >>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal, that ZFC is built on first-order logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this >>>>>>>>>>>>> change
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> set can not be a member of itself, and that we can count >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the members of a set.
or was not required to defeat RP.
but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, they needed >>>>>>>>>>>> to define the full set.
I think you problem is you just don't understand how formal >>>>>>>>>>>> logic works.
I think at a higher level of abstraction.
No, you don't, unless you mean by that not bothering to make >>>>>>>>>> sure the details work.
You can't do fundamental logic in the abstract.
That is just called fluff and bluster.
All that they did is just like I said they redefined
what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of details of
how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement
saying that all they did is redefine a set.
Showing the sort of thing YOU need to do to redefine logic >>>>>>>>>>
I said that ZFC redefined the notion of a set to get rid of RP. >>>>>>>>> You show the steps of how ZFC redefined a set as your rebuttal. >>>>>>>>
They developed a full formal system.
They did nothing besides change the definition of
a set and the result of this was a new formal system.
I guess you consider all the papers they wrote describing the
effects of their definitions "nothing"
Not at all and you know this.
One change had many effects yet was still one change.
But would mean nothing without showing the affects of that change.
Yet again with your imprecise use of words.
When any tiniest portion of the meaning of an expression
has been defined this teeny tiny piece of the definition
makes this expression not pure random gibberish.
Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
And your statements have NO Meaning because they are based on LIE.
We can not use the "ZFC" set theory from *JUST* the definition, but
need all the other rules derived from it.
The root cause of all of the changes is the redefinition
of what a set is. Likewise with my own redefinition of a
formal system by simply defining the details of True(L,x).
Once I specify the architecture others can fill in the details.
On 8/17/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 10:45 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As with all math and logic we have expressions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this same language. Unless expression x has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are totally reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fraenkel. They created a new definition of what a set was, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then showed what that implies, since by changing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions, all the old work of set theory has to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown out, and then we see what can be established. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
None of this is changing any more rules. All
of these are the effects of the change of the
definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could >>>>>>>>>>>> do as basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, >>>>>>>>>>>> that ZFC is built on first-order logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox.
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set >>>>>>>>>>>> can not be a member of itself, and that we can count the >>>>>>>>>>>> members of a set.
If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change >>>>>>>>>>> or was not required to defeat RP.
but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, they needed to >>>>>>>>>> define the full set.
I think you problem is you just don't understand how formal >>>>>>>>>> logic works.
I think at a higher level of abstraction.
No, you don't, unless you mean by that not bothering to make
sure the details work.
You can't do fundamental logic in the abstract.
That is just called fluff and bluster.
All that they did is just like I said they redefined
what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of details of
how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement
saying that all they did is redefine a set.
Showing the sort of thing YOU need to do to redefine logic
I said that ZFC redefined the notion of a set to get rid of RP.
You show the steps of how ZFC redefined a set as your rebuttal.
No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is just a LIE. >>>>>>
They developed a full formal system.
They did nothing besides change the definition of
a set and the result of this was a new formal system.
I guess you consider all the papers they wrote describing the
effects of their definitions "nothing"
Not at all and you know this.
One change had many effects yet was still one change.
But would mean nothing without showing the affects of that change.
Yet again with your imprecise use of words.
When any tiniest portion of the meaning of an expression
has been defined this teeny tiny piece of the definition
makes this expression not pure random gibberish.
Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning. https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
On 8/17/2024 11:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 10:45 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is just a >>>>>>>>>> LIE.
On 8/16/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As with all math and logic we have expressions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language
that are true on the basis of their meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connection
(through a sequence of true preserving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
If you want to do that, you need to start at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basics are totally reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fraenkel. They created a new definition of what a set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was, and then showed what that implies, since by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changing the definitions, all the old work of set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory has to be thrown out, and then we see what can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these are the effects of the change of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could do as basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal, that ZFC is built on first-order logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set can not be a member of itself, and that we can count >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the members of a set.
or was not required to defeat RP.
but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, they needed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to define the full set.
I think you problem is you just don't understand how >>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal logic works.
I think at a higher level of abstraction.
No, you don't, unless you mean by that not bothering to make >>>>>>>>>>>> sure the details work.
You can't do fundamental logic in the abstract.
That is just called fluff and bluster.
All that they did is just like I said they redefined >>>>>>>>>>>>> what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of details of >>>>>>>>>>>>> how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement >>>>>>>>>>>>> saying that all they did is redefine a set.
Showing the sort of thing YOU need to do to redefine logic >>>>>>>>>>>>
I said that ZFC redefined the notion of a set to get rid of RP. >>>>>>>>>>> You show the steps of how ZFC redefined a set as your rebuttal. >>>>>>>>>>
They developed a full formal system.
They did nothing besides change the definition of
a set and the result of this was a new formal system.
I guess you consider all the papers they wrote describing the
effects of their definitions "nothing"
Not at all and you know this.
One change had many effects yet was still one change.
But would mean nothing without showing the affects of that change. >>>>>>
Yet again with your imprecise use of words.
When any tiniest portion of the meaning of an expression
has been defined this teeny tiny piece of the definition
makes this expression not pure random gibberish.
Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
And your statements have NO Meaning because they are based on LIE.
We can not use the "ZFC" set theory from *JUST* the definition, but
need all the other rules derived from it.
The root cause of all of the changes is the redefinition
of what a set is. Likewise with my own redefinition of a
formal system by simply defining the details of True(L,x).
Once I specify the architecture others can fill in the details.
Yes, the ROOT was that change, but you don't understand that if they
JUST did that root, and not the other work, Set theory would not have
been "fixed", as it still wouldn't have been usable.
Defining that no set can be a member of itself would seem
to do the trick.
On 8/17/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 10:45 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If anything else changed it changed on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this change
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As with all math and logic we have expressions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did to conquer Russell's Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to do that, you need to start at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basics are totally reformulate logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fraenkel. They created a new definition of what a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set was, and then showed what that implies, since by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changing the definitions, all the old work of set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory has to be thrown out, and then we see what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these are the effects of the change of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could do as basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal, that ZFC is built on first-order logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a set can not be a member of itself, and that we can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> count the members of a set.
or was not required to defeat RP.
but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed to define the full set.
I think you problem is you just don't understand how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal logic works.
I think at a higher level of abstraction.
No, you don't, unless you mean by that not bothering to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sure the details work.
You can't do fundamental logic in the abstract.
That is just called fluff and bluster.
All that they did is just like I said they redefined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of details of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying that all they did is redefine a set.
Showing the sort of thing YOU need to do to redefine logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I said that ZFC redefined the notion of a set to get rid of >>>>>>>>>>>>> RP.
You show the steps of how ZFC redefined a set as your >>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal.
No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is just >>>>>>>>>>>> a LIE.
They developed a full formal system.
They did nothing besides change the definition of
a set and the result of this was a new formal system.
I guess you consider all the papers they wrote describing the >>>>>>>>>> effects of their definitions "nothing"
Not at all and you know this.
One change had many effects yet was still one change.
But would mean nothing without showing the affects of that change. >>>>>>>>
Yet again with your imprecise use of words.
When any tiniest portion of the meaning of an expression
has been defined this teeny tiny piece of the definition
makes this expression not pure random gibberish.
Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
And your statements have NO Meaning because they are based on LIE. >>>>>>
We can not use the "ZFC" set theory from *JUST* the definition,
but need all the other rules derived from it.
The root cause of all of the changes is the redefinition
of what a set is. Likewise with my own redefinition of a
formal system by simply defining the details of True(L,x).
Once I specify the architecture others can fill in the details.
Yes, the ROOT was that change, but you don't understand that if they
JUST did that root, and not the other work, Set theory would not
have been "fixed", as it still wouldn't have been usable.
Defining that no set can be a member of itself would seem
to do the trick.
But usable, until integrated into a Formal Logic system.
No. Just tacking it on at the end of set theory gets rid of RP.
On 8/17/2024 12:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 10:45 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If anything else changed it changed on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this changeOn 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As with all math and logic we have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC
did to conquer Russell's Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to do that, you need to start at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basics are totally reformulate logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine the notion of a set so that it was no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer
incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fraenkel. They created a new definition of what a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set was, and then showed what that implies, since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by changing the definitions, all the old work of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set theory has to be thrown out, and then we see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what can be established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these are the effects of the change of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you could do as basic operations ON a set. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal, that ZFC is built on first-order logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a set can not be a member of itself, and that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can count the members of a set.
or was not required to defeat RP.
but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed to define the full set.
I think you problem is you just don't understand how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal logic works.
I think at a higher level of abstraction.
No, you don't, unless you mean by that not bothering to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sure the details work.
You can't do fundamental logic in the abstract. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is just called fluff and bluster.
All that they did is just like I said they redefined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of details of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying that all they did is redefine a set.
Showing the sort of thing YOU need to do to redefine logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I said that ZFC redefined the notion of a set to get rid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of RP.
You show the steps of how ZFC redefined a set as your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal.
No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a LIE.
They developed a full formal system.
They did nothing besides change the definition of
a set and the result of this was a new formal system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess you consider all the papers they wrote describing >>>>>>>>>>>> the effects of their definitions "nothing"
Not at all and you know this.
One change had many effects yet was still one change.
But would mean nothing without showing the affects of that >>>>>>>>>> change.
Yet again with your imprecise use of words.
When any tiniest portion of the meaning of an expression
has been defined this teeny tiny piece of the definition
makes this expression not pure random gibberish.
Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
And your statements have NO Meaning because they are based on LIE. >>>>>>>>
We can not use the "ZFC" set theory from *JUST* the definition, >>>>>>>> but need all the other rules derived from it.
The root cause of all of the changes is the redefinition
of what a set is. Likewise with my own redefinition of a
formal system by simply defining the details of True(L,x).
Once I specify the architecture others can fill in the details.
Yes, the ROOT was that change, but you don't understand that if
they JUST did that root, and not the other work, Set theory would
not have been "fixed", as it still wouldn't have been usable.
Defining that no set can be a member of itself would seem
to do the trick.
But usable, until integrated into a Formal Logic system.
No. Just tacking it on at the end of set theory gets rid of RP.
Nope, because you can just ignore any axiom you don't want to use.
It is part of the definition of a set thus cannot be correctly
ignored.
On 8/17/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 12:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 10:45 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:No, you don't, unless you mean by that not bothering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make sure the details work.
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If anything else changed it changed on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this changeBut you clearly don't understand the meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "undecidability"
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As with all math and logic we have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are true on the basis of their meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations) in system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> F to its semantic meanings expressed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language L of F
x is simply untrue in F. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ZFC
did to conquer Russell's Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to do that, you need to start at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basics are totally reformulate logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine the notion of a set so that it was no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer
incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Fraenkel. They created a new definition of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a set was, and then showed what that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implies, since by changing the definitions, all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the old work of set theory has to be thrown out, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then we see what can be established. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
None of this is changing any more rules. All >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these are the effects of the change of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you could do as basic operations ON a set. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being equal, that ZFC is built on first-order logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a set can not be a member of itself, and that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can count the members of a set. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
or was not required to defeat RP.
but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed to define the full set.
I think you problem is you just don't understand how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal logic works.
I think at a higher level of abstraction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You can't do fundamental logic in the abstract. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is just called fluff and bluster.
Showing the sort of thing YOU need to do to redefine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic
All that they did is just like I said they redefined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of details of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying that all they did is redefine a set. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I said that ZFC redefined the notion of a set to get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rid of RP.
You show the steps of how ZFC redefined a set as your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal.
No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a LIE.
They developed a full formal system.
They did nothing besides change the definition of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a set and the result of this was a new formal system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess you consider all the papers they wrote describing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the effects of their definitions "nothing"
Not at all and you know this.
One change had many effects yet was still one change. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
But would mean nothing without showing the affects of that >>>>>>>>>>>> change.
Yet again with your imprecise use of words.
When any tiniest portion of the meaning of an expression >>>>>>>>>>> has been defined this teeny tiny piece of the definition >>>>>>>>>>> makes this expression not pure random gibberish.
Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
And your statements have NO Meaning because they are based on >>>>>>>>>> LIE.
We can not use the "ZFC" set theory from *JUST* the
definition, but need all the other rules derived from it.
The root cause of all of the changes is the redefinition
of what a set is. Likewise with my own redefinition of a
formal system by simply defining the details of True(L,x).
Once I specify the architecture others can fill in the details. >>>>>>>>>
Yes, the ROOT was that change, but you don't understand that if >>>>>>>> they JUST did that root, and not the other work, Set theory
would not have been "fixed", as it still wouldn't have been usable. >>>>>>>>
Defining that no set can be a member of itself would seem
to do the trick.
But usable, until integrated into a Formal Logic system.
No. Just tacking it on at the end of set theory gets rid of RP.
Nope, because you can just ignore any axiom you don't want to use.
It is part of the definition of a set thus cannot be correctly
ignored.
In other words, you are just admitting you don't understand how logic
works.
If you CHANGE an existing axiom, everything that depended on that
axiom needs to be re-verified.
If you ADD a new axiom, it doesn't affect ANY argument that doesn't
try to use it, and thus doesn't affect Russel's Paradox.
OK.
I add the definition for the True(L, x) predicate
and every instance of the notion of True changes
in every formal mathematical logic system.
On 8/17/2024 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 2:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 12:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:The root cause of all of the changes is the redefinition >>>>>>>>>>> of what a set is. Likewise with my own redefinition of a >>>>>>>>>>> formal system by simply defining the details of True(L,x). >>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/17/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 10:45 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, you don't, unless you mean by that not bothering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make sure the details work.
but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they needed to define the full set. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ZFCBut you clearly don't understand the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of "undecidability" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*This abolishes the notion of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are true on the basis of their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this same language. Unless expression >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x has a connection >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (through a sequence of true preserving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations) in system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> F to its semantic meanings expressed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language L of F
x is simply untrue in F. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
did to conquer Russell's Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to do that, you need to start at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basics are totally reformulate logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no longer
incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Fraenkel. They created a new definition of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a set was, and then showed what that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implies, since by changing the definitions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the old work of set theory has to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown out, and then we see what can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these are the effects of the change of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you could do as basic operations ON a set. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being equal, that ZFC is built on first-order >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox.
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a set can not be a member of itself, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we can count the members of a set. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If anything else changed it changed on the basis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this change
or was not required to defeat RP. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think you problem is you just don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how formal logic works.
I think at a higher level of abstraction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You can't do fundamental logic in the abstract. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is just called fluff and bluster. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Showing the sort of thing YOU need to do to redefine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic
All that they did is just like I said they redefined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details of
how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying that all they did is redefine a set. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I said that ZFC redefined the notion of a set to get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rid of RP.
You show the steps of how ZFC redefined a set as your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal.
No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a LIE.
They developed a full formal system.
They did nothing besides change the definition of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a set and the result of this was a new formal system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess you consider all the papers they wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describing the effects of their definitions "nothing" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not at all and you know this.
One change had many effects yet was still one change. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But would mean nothing without showing the affects of that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> change.
Yet again with your imprecise use of words.
When any tiniest portion of the meaning of an expression >>>>>>>>>>>>> has been defined this teeny tiny piece of the definition >>>>>>>>>>>>> makes this expression not pure random gibberish.
Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
And your statements have NO Meaning because they are based >>>>>>>>>>>> on LIE.
We can not use the "ZFC" set theory from *JUST* the
definition, but need all the other rules derived from it. >>>>>>>>>>>
Once I specify the architecture others can fill in the details. >>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, the ROOT was that change, but you don't understand that >>>>>>>>>> if they JUST did that root, and not the other work, Set theory >>>>>>>>>> would not have been "fixed", as it still wouldn't have been >>>>>>>>>> usable.
Defining that no set can be a member of itself would seem
to do the trick.
But usable, until integrated into a Formal Logic system.
No. Just tacking it on at the end of set theory gets rid of RP.
Nope, because you can just ignore any axiom you don't want to use. >>>>>>
It is part of the definition of a set thus cannot be correctly
ignored.
In other words, you are just admitting you don't understand how
logic works.
If you CHANGE an existing axiom, everything that depended on that
axiom needs to be re-verified.
If you ADD a new axiom, it doesn't affect ANY argument that doesn't
try to use it, and thus doesn't affect Russel's Paradox.
OK.
I add the definition for the True(L, x) predicate
and every instance of the notion of True changes
in every formal mathematical logic system.
But either that changes what that instance means,
When I stipulate what True(L,x) means then that is done.
It does not go on and in any circle endlessly redefining itself.
Everything in logic the depended on some notion of True is
changed. Any logic operations that were not truth preserving
are discarded. The notion of valid inference is also changed
because it was not truth preserving.
When a conclusion is not a necessary consequence of all of its
premises then the argument is invalid.
On 8/17/2024 1:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 2:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
In other words, you are just admitting you don't understand how
logic works.
If you CHANGE an existing axiom, everything that depended on that
axiom needs to be re-verified.
If you ADD a new axiom, it doesn't affect ANY argument that
doesn't try to use it, and thus doesn't affect Russel's Paradox.
OK.
I add the definition for the True(L, x) predicate
and every instance of the notion of True changes
in every formal mathematical logic system.
But either that changes what that instance means,
When I stipulate what True(L,x) means then that is done.
It does not go on and in any circle endlessly redefining itself.
Nope. You can say for YOUR usage, what you mean by True(L,x). You
can't force others to use that,
Likewise ZFC is a mere opinion that most everyone chooses to ignore.
or reinterprete what others have said or proven based on you
stipulation, in fact, by stipulating that definition, anythig that
uses any other definition of it becomes out of bounds for your argument.
Everything in logic the depended on some notion of True is
changed. Any logic operations that were not truth preserving
are discarded. The notion of valid inference is also changed
because it was not truth preserving.
And needs to be reproved to see if it is still true.
When a conclusion is not a necessary consequence of all of its
premises then the argument is invalid.
Right, so YOUR argument here is invalid.
It is proven totally true entirely on the basis of the
meaning of its words. Math conventions to the contrary
simply ignore this.
On 8/17/2024 2:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 3:12 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 1:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 2:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
OK.
In other words, you are just admitting you don't understand how >>>>>>>> logic works.
If you CHANGE an existing axiom, everything that depended on
that axiom needs to be re-verified.
If you ADD a new axiom, it doesn't affect ANY argument that
doesn't try to use it, and thus doesn't affect Russel's Paradox. >>>>>>>
I add the definition for the True(L, x) predicate
and every instance of the notion of True changes
in every formal mathematical logic system.
But either that changes what that instance means,
When I stipulate what True(L,x) means then that is done.
It does not go on and in any circle endlessly redefining itself.
Nope. You can say for YOUR usage, what you mean by True(L,x). You
can't force others to use that,
Likewise ZFC is a mere opinion that most everyone chooses to ignore.
No, it isn't an "opinion", it is a set of definitions, and the logic
system that comes out of them.
People are of course allowed to choose which ever set theory they want
to use, but if they choose to use Naive Set Theory, they have the
problem that it is known to be inconsistant, and thus any "proof" they
build is suspect.
They can also shoose some other Set theory Theory, maybe even just
ZF, or to one of the derived theorys like Morse-Kelly, or to something
different like one of the New Foundations Systems. The key is you tend
to need to specify if you differ from ZFC which is generally
considered the default.
You seem to be having trouble with the words you are using.
Not that. I am taking the hypothetical extreme position
to see where you set your own boundaries on this.
or reinterprete what others have said or proven based on you
stipulation, in fact, by stipulating that definition, anythig that
uses any other definition of it becomes out of bounds for your
argument.
Everything in logic the depended on some notion of True is
changed. Any logic operations that were not truth preserving
are discarded. The notion of valid inference is also changed
because it was not truth preserving.
And needs to be reproved to see if it is still true.
When a conclusion is not a necessary consequence of all of its
premises then the argument is invalid.
Right, so YOUR argument here is invalid.
It is proven totally true entirely on the basis of the
meaning of its words. Math conventions to the contrary
simply ignore this.
Nope. You are just proving by the meaning of the words that you are
totally ignorant of how logic works.
Sorry, but that is the facts.
Logic is currently defined to work contrary to the way that
truth itself actually works. No logician ever noticed this
because testing the coherence of basic principles of logic
is outside of the scope of logicians.
They are generally a learned-by-rote bunch. Philosophy of
logic delves into this more deeply the problem. The
learned-by-rote bunch assumes that learning by rote makes
them philosophers. They tend to push actual philosophers
out by denigrating them in the philosophy of logic spaces.
Wittgenstein had no patience with them.
On 8/17/2024 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 3:54 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 2:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 3:12 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 1:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 2:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
OK.
In other words, you are just admitting you don't understand >>>>>>>>>> how logic works.
If you CHANGE an existing axiom, everything that depended on >>>>>>>>>> that axiom needs to be re-verified.
If you ADD a new axiom, it doesn't affect ANY argument that >>>>>>>>>> doesn't try to use it, and thus doesn't affect Russel's Paradox. >>>>>>>>>
I add the definition for the True(L, x) predicate
and every instance of the notion of True changes
in every formal mathematical logic system.
But either that changes what that instance means,
When I stipulate what True(L,x) means then that is done.
It does not go on and in any circle endlessly redefining itself.
Nope. You can say for YOUR usage, what you mean by True(L,x). You
can't force others to use that,
Likewise ZFC is a mere opinion that most everyone chooses to ignore.
No, it isn't an "opinion", it is a set of definitions, and the logic
system that comes out of them.
People are of course allowed to choose which ever set theory they
want to use, but if they choose to use Naive Set Theory, they have
the problem that it is known to be inconsistant, and thus any
"proof" they build is suspect.
They can also shoose some other Set theory Theory, maybe even just
ZF, or to one of the derived theorys like Morse-Kelly, or to
something different like one of the New Foundations Systems. The key
is you tend to need to specify if you differ from ZFC which is
generally considered the default.
You seem to be having trouble with the words you are using.
Not that. I am taking the hypothetical extreme position
to see where you set your own boundaries on this.
Which just means you don't know what you words mean.
I wanted to see what you thought the words mean.
You did come up with a good answer.
ZFC isn't an "Opinion", meaning a personal idea about an issue, but is
a definition of a possible Set Theory. You could assume they have an
opinion that is it a GOOD definition for Set Theory, but that is
irrelevent.
They never claimed that it was the ONLY Set Theory, just that it was
*A* Set Theory that provides a good basis for the field.
They may have only claimed that yet they did more.
They corrected the incoherence of naive set theory.
So, I don't see where your "possition" makes any sense, but just shows
a total misunderstanding of what you are talking about.
or reinterprete what others have said or proven based on you
stipulation, in fact, by stipulating that definition, anythig that >>>>>> uses any other definition of it becomes out of bounds for your
argument.
Everything in logic the depended on some notion of True is
changed. Any logic operations that were not truth preserving
are discarded. The notion of valid inference is also changed
because it was not truth preserving.
And needs to be reproved to see if it is still true.
When a conclusion is not a necessary consequence of all of its
premises then the argument is invalid.
Right, so YOUR argument here is invalid.
It is proven totally true entirely on the basis of the
meaning of its words. Math conventions to the contrary
simply ignore this.
Nope. You are just proving by the meaning of the words that you are
totally ignorant of how logic works.
Sorry, but that is the facts.
Logic is currently defined to work contrary to the way that
truth itself actually works. No logician ever noticed this
because testing the coherence of basic principles of logic
is outside of the scope of logicians.
That may be YOUR OPINION, but "Truth" (in logic) is actualy a DEFINED
TERM.
It is more of a somewhat poorly defined process than it is a defined term.
They are generally a learned-by-rote bunch. Philosophy of
logic delves into this more deeply the problem. The
learned-by-rote bunch assumes that learning by rote makes
them philosophers. They tend to push actual philosophers
out by denigrating them in the philosophy of logic spaces.
Wittgenstein had no patience with them.
No, you have your never-learned-because-of-ignorance ideas that are
just incoherent.
It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
Your trying to ally with Wittgenstein doesn't really help you, as his
ideas were not always accepted, and considered prone to error, not
unlike your own.
It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
On 8/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 4:55 PM, olcott wrote:
It is more of a somewhat poorly defined process than it is a defined
term.
Thinks IGNORANT you.
The vast disagreement on very important truths
such as climate change and election denial seems
to prove that the notion of truth lacks a process
sufficiently well defined that it is accessible
to most.
They are generally a learned-by-rote bunch. Philosophy of
logic delves into this more deeply the problem. The
learned-by-rote bunch assumes that learning by rote makes
them philosophers. They tend to push actual philosophers
out by denigrating them in the philosophy of logic spaces.
Wittgenstein had no patience with them.
No, you have your never-learned-because-of-ignorance ideas that are
just incoherent.
It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
Wittgenstein said the same thing.
Try to name any logician that has any history of
being open to critiques of the received view and
you will come up empty.
Your trying to ally with Wittgenstein doesn't really help you, as
his ideas were not always accepted, and considered prone to error,
not unlike your own.
It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
Your problem is you reject that logic HAS rules that need to be followed,
Just like I said a learned-by-rote view.
Not any what happens if we change this rule? POV
and thus you have put yourself out of the game, and make yourself into
a LIAR by claiming to be in the game, but diqualfing youself by
breaking the rules.
Just like I said a learned-by-rote view.
Not any what happens if we change this rule? POV
Sorry, you are just proving how STUPID and IGNORANT you are of what
you talk abot.
On 8/17/2024 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 5:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 4:55 PM, olcott wrote:
It is more of a somewhat poorly defined process than it is a
defined term.
Thinks IGNORANT you.
The vast disagreement on very important truths
such as climate change and election denial seems
to prove that the notion of truth lacks a process
sufficiently well defined that it is accessible
to most.
But has nothing to do with what Philosophy thinks of as truth, but of
people being closed minded
The process is not sufficiently well defined such
that divergence from truth smacks people in the face.
They are generally a learned-by-rote bunch. Philosophy of
logic delves into this more deeply the problem. The
learned-by-rote bunch assumes that learning by rote makes
them philosophers. They tend to push actual philosophers
out by denigrating them in the philosophy of logic spaces.
Wittgenstein had no patience with them.
No, you have your never-learned-because-of-ignorance ideas that
are just incoherent.
It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
Wittgenstein said the same thing.
Try to name any logician that has any history of
being open to critiques of the received view and
you will come up empty.
Your trying to ally with Wittgenstein doesn't really help you, as
his ideas were not always accepted, and considered prone to error, >>>>>> not unlike your own.
It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
Your problem is you reject that logic HAS rules that need to be
followed,
Just like I said a learned-by-rote view.
Not any what happens if we change this rule? POV
Note, I said has rules, and different forms of logic have different
rules, something that seems foreign to you.
We change one key rule of logic and then all of the
logical paradoxes suddenly disappear and logic becomes
complete, coherent and consistent.
On 8/17/2024 5:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 5:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 4:55 PM, olcott wrote:
It is more of a somewhat poorly defined process than it is a
defined term.
Thinks IGNORANT you.
The vast disagreement on very important truths
such as climate change and election denial seems
to prove that the notion of truth lacks a process
sufficiently well defined that it is accessible
to most.
But has nothing to do with what Philosophy thinks of as truth, but
of people being closed minded
The process is not sufficiently well defined such
that divergence from truth smacks people in the face.
Nope, that isn't the problem, it has nothing to do with Logic or
Philosophy, by with Psychology, so trying to improve logic or
Philosophy will not help with it,
When people ignore "facts", you can't help with logic.
YOU prove that point,
They are generally a learned-by-rote bunch. Philosophy of
logic delves into this more deeply the problem. The
learned-by-rote bunch assumes that learning by rote makes
them philosophers. They tend to push actual philosophers
out by denigrating them in the philosophy of logic spaces.
Wittgenstein had no patience with them.
No, you have your never-learned-because-of-ignorance ideas that >>>>>>>> are just incoherent.
It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
Wittgenstein said the same thing.
Try to name any logician that has any history of
being open to critiques of the received view and
you will come up empty.
Your trying to ally with Wittgenstein doesn't really help you, >>>>>>>> as his ideas were not always accepted, and considered prone to >>>>>>>> error, not unlike your own.
It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
Your problem is you reject that logic HAS rules that need to be
followed,
Just like I said a learned-by-rote view.
Not any what happens if we change this rule? POV
Note, I said has rules, and different forms of logic have different
rules, something that seems foreign to you.
We change one key rule of logic and then all of the
logical paradoxes suddenly disappear and logic becomes
complete, coherent and consistent.
And limited, too limited to be useful.
Not at all, yet you only care about rebuttal.
The formal systems are essentially the same as
before except they exclude self-contradictory
expressions as bad input.
On 8/17/2024 6:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 6:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 5:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 5:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 4:55 PM, olcott wrote:
It is more of a somewhat poorly defined process than it is a >>>>>>>>> defined term.
Thinks IGNORANT you.
The vast disagreement on very important truths
such as climate change and election denial seems
to prove that the notion of truth lacks a process
sufficiently well defined that it is accessible
to most.
But has nothing to do with what Philosophy thinks of as truth, but >>>>>> of people being closed minded
The process is not sufficiently well defined such
that divergence from truth smacks people in the face.
Nope, that isn't the problem, it has nothing to do with Logic or
Philosophy, by with Psychology, so trying to improve logic or
Philosophy will not help with it,
When people ignore "facts", you can't help with logic.
YOU prove that point,
They are generally a learned-by-rote bunch. Philosophy of >>>>>>>>>>> logic delves into this more deeply the problem. The
learned-by-rote bunch assumes that learning by rote makes >>>>>>>>>>> them philosophers. They tend to push actual philosophers >>>>>>>>>>> out by denigrating them in the philosophy of logic spaces. >>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein had no patience with them.
No, you have your never-learned-because-of-ignorance ideas >>>>>>>>>> that are just incoherent.
It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic >>>>>>>>> and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
Wittgenstein said the same thing.
Try to name any logician that has any history of
being open to critiques of the received view and
you will come up empty.
Your trying to ally with Wittgenstein doesn't really help you, >>>>>>>>>> as his ideas were not always accepted, and considered prone to >>>>>>>>>> error, not unlike your own.
It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic >>>>>>>>> and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
Your problem is you reject that logic HAS rules that need to be >>>>>>>> followed,
Just like I said a learned-by-rote view.
Not any what happens if we change this rule? POV
Note, I said has rules, and different forms of logic have
different rules, something that seems foreign to you.
We change one key rule of logic and then all of the
logical paradoxes suddenly disappear and logic becomes
complete, coherent and consistent.
And limited, too limited to be useful.
Not at all, yet you only care about rebuttal.
The formal systems are essentially the same as
before except they exclude self-contradictory
expressions as bad input.
Nope, because changing a core definition invalidates ANY proof that
used the old version of the definition until it is shown that it
doesn't changee the proof.
The non-existence of a concrete counter-example would prove otherwise.
In this simplified version of my proposal a valid counter-example
is categorically impossible.
When the ONLY change is that self-contradictory expressions
are rejected then this cannot possibly have any effect on
anything not involving self-contradictory expressions.
When all of your eggs are white then none of your eggs are black.
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/15/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-13 12:43:16 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/13/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-12 13:44:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of existence of an >>>>>>>>>> algrithm makes something computable. You can't compute if you con't
On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself, >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be relevant to Quine's topic?
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>> how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that matters >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me is that I have defined expressions of language that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> {true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language} >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points. >>>>>>>>>>>>>That does not justify lying.
I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
topic with any distraction that you can find.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines >>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the
expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker. >>>>>>>>>>
know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm. >>>>>>>>>>
There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from >>>>>>>>> the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal >>>>>>>>> model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is >>>>>>>>> how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.
Nice to see that you con't disagree.
When the idea that I presented is fully understood
it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.
If you can't prove atl least that you have an interesting idea
nobody is going to stody it enough to understood.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition
is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning >>>>> without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
Self-evident propositions are uninteresting.
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
On 8/16/2024 8:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-16 12:11:19 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/16/2024 6:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-16 11:02:07 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/15/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-13 12:43:16 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/13/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-12 13:44:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of existence of an >>>>>>>>>>>> algrithm makes something computable. You can't compute if you con't
On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be relevant to Quine's topic?
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that matters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me is that I have defined expressions of language that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That does not justify lying.
I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
topic with any distraction that you can find.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines >>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines >>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic >>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction.
This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the >>>>>>>>>>>>> expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker. >>>>>>>>>>>>
know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm. >>>>>>>>>>>>
There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from >>>>>>>>>>> the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal >>>>>>>>>>> model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is >>>>>>>>>>> how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.
Nice to see that you con't disagree.
When the idea that I presented is fully understood
it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.
If you can't prove atl least that you have an interesting idea >>>>>>>> nobody is going to stody it enough to understood.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition >>>>>>> is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning >>>>>>> without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
Self-evident propositions are uninteresting.
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
No, it does not. In every consisten system has some x that is
untrue in the above sense. That does not make the negation of
x true in the same sense.
Whenever there is no sequence of truth preserving from
x or ~x to its meaning in L of F then x has no truth-maker
in F and x not a truth-bearer in F. We never get to x is
undecidable in F.
If x is not a truh-bearer it is undecidable. If x is not undecidable
the it is decidable, i.e., either x or its negation is provable.
You have the notion, you only used another vernacuar term.
If you cannot prove or refute that you are going to
the store to buy a carton of milk in Boolean algebra
that does not mean that Boolean algebra is incomplete.
It means that this proof is not in the domain of
Boolean algebra.
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system >>>>>>>>> F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability" >>>>>>>
did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are totally >>>>>> reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. They
created a new definition of what a set was, and then showed what that
implies, since by changing the definitions, all the old work of set
theory has to be thrown out, and then we see what can be established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All
of these are the effects of the change of the
definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could do as
basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, that ZFC is
built on first-order logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox.
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set can not be
a member of itself, and that we can count the members of a set.
If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change
or was not required to defeat RP.
Axiom Schema of Specification: We can build a sub-set from another set
and a set of conditions. (Which implies the existance of the empty set)
On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/15/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-13 12:43:16 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/13/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-12 13:44:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of existence of an >>>>>>>>>>>> algrithm makes something computable. You can't compute if you con't
On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be relevant to Quine's topic?
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that matters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me is that I have defined expressions of language that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That does not justify lying.
I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
topic with any distraction that you can find.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines >>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines >>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic >>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction.
This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the >>>>>>>>>>>>> expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker. >>>>>>>>>>>>
know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm. >>>>>>>>>>>>
There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from >>>>>>>>>>> the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal >>>>>>>>>>> model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is >>>>>>>>>>> how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.
Nice to see that you con't disagree.
When the idea that I presented is fully understood
it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.
If you can't prove atl least that you have an interesting idea >>>>>>>> nobody is going to stody it enough to understood.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition >>>>>>> is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning >>>>>>> without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
Self-evident propositions are uninteresting.
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are totally
reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
incoherent.
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/15/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-13 12:43:16 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/13/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-12 13:44:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of existence of an
On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be relevant to Quine's topic?
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that mattersThat does not justify lying.
to me is that I have defined expressions of language that are
{true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
It looks like you only want to dodge the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic with any distraction that you can find.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in this same language} defines >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction.
This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
algrithm makes something computable. You can't compute if you con't
know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from >>>>>>>>>>>>> the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal >>>>>>>>>>>>> model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is >>>>>>>>>>>>> how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.
Nice to see that you con't disagree.
When the idea that I presented is fully understood
it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.
If you can't prove atl least that you have an interesting idea >>>>>>>>>> nobody is going to stody it enough to understood.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition >>>>>>>>> is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
Self-evident propositions are uninteresting.
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are totally
reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. They
created a new definition of what a set was, and then showed what that
implies, since by changing the definitions, all the old work of set
theory has to be thrown out, and then we see what can be established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All
of these are the effects of the change of the
definition of a set.
On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability" >>>>>>>>>>>>>
did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are totally
reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. They >>>>>>>>>> created a new definition of what a set was, and then showed what that
implies, since by changing the definitions, all the old work of set >>>>>>>>>> theory has to be thrown out, and then we see what can be established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All
of these are the effects of the change of the
definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could do as >>>>>>>> basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, that ZFC is
built on first-order logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox.
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set can not be >>>>>>>> a member of itself, and that we can count the members of a set. >>>>>>>>
If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change
or was not required to defeat RP.
but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, they needed to define >>>>>> the full set.
I think you problem is you just don't understand how formal logic works. >>>>>>
I think at a higher level of abstraction.
No, you don't, unless you mean by that not bothering to make sure the
details work.
You can't do fundamental logic in the abstract.
That is just called fluff and bluster.
All that they did is just like I said they redefined
what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of details of
how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement
saying that all they did is redefine a set.
Showing the sort of thing YOU need to do to redefine logic
I said that ZFC redefined the notion of a set to get rid of RP.
You show the steps of how ZFC redefined a set as your rebuttal.
No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is just a LIE.
They developed a full formal system.
They did nothing besides change the definition of
a set and the result of this was a new formal system.
On 8/17/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 10:45 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As with all math and logic we have expressions of language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are totally
reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. They
created a new definition of what a set was, and then showed what that
implies, since by changing the definitions, all the old work of set
theory has to be thrown out, and then we see what can be established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All
of these are the effects of the change of the
definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could do as >>>>>>>>>>>> basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, that ZFC is
built on first-order logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox.
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set can not be
a member of itself, and that we can count the members of a set. >>>>>>>>>>>>
If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change >>>>>>>>>>> or was not required to defeat RP.
but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, they needed to define >>>>>>>>>> the full set.
I think you problem is you just don't understand how formal logic works.
I think at a higher level of abstraction.
No, you don't, unless you mean by that not bothering to make sure the >>>>>>>> details work.
You can't do fundamental logic in the abstract.
That is just called fluff and bluster.
All that they did is just like I said they redefined
what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of details of
how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement
saying that all they did is redefine a set.
Showing the sort of thing YOU need to do to redefine logic
I said that ZFC redefined the notion of a set to get rid of RP.
You show the steps of how ZFC redefined a set as your rebuttal.
No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is just a LIE. >>>>>>
They developed a full formal system.
They did nothing besides change the definition of
a set and the result of this was a new formal system.
I guess you consider all the papers they wrote describing the effects
of their definitions "nothing"
Not at all and you know this.
One change had many effects yet was still one change.
But would mean nothing without showing the affects of that change.
Yet again with your imprecise use of words.
When any tiniest portion of the meaning of an expression
has been defined this teeny tiny piece of the definition
makes this expression not pure random gibberish.
Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning. https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
On 8/17/2024 11:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 10:45 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is just a LIE. >>>>>>>>>>
On 8/16/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are totally
reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. They
created a new definition of what a set was, and then showed what that
implies, since by changing the definitions, all the old work of set
theory has to be thrown out, and then we see what can be established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these are the effects of the change of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could do as
basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, that ZFC is
built on first-order logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or was not required to defeat RP.
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set can not be
a member of itself, and that we can count the members of a set.
but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, they needed to define
the full set.
I think you problem is you just don't understand how formal logic works.
I think at a higher level of abstraction.
No, you don't, unless you mean by that not bothering to make sure the
details work.
You can't do fundamental logic in the abstract.
That is just called fluff and bluster.
All that they did is just like I said they redefined >>>>>>>>>>>>> what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of details of >>>>>>>>>>>>> how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement >>>>>>>>>>>>> saying that all they did is redefine a set.
Showing the sort of thing YOU need to do to redefine logic >>>>>>>>>>>>
I said that ZFC redefined the notion of a set to get rid of RP. >>>>>>>>>>> You show the steps of how ZFC redefined a set as your rebuttal. >>>>>>>>>>
They developed a full formal system.
They did nothing besides change the definition of
a set and the result of this was a new formal system.
I guess you consider all the papers they wrote describing the effects >>>>>>>> of their definitions "nothing"
Not at all and you know this.
One change had many effects yet was still one change.
But would mean nothing without showing the affects of that change. >>>>>>
Yet again with your imprecise use of words.
When any tiniest portion of the meaning of an expression
has been defined this teeny tiny piece of the definition
makes this expression not pure random gibberish.
Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
And your statements have NO Meaning because they are based on LIE.
We can not use the "ZFC" set theory from *JUST* the definition, but
need all the other rules derived from it.
The root cause of all of the changes is the redefinition
of what a set is. Likewise with my own redefinition of a
formal system by simply defining the details of True(L,x).
Once I specify the architecture others can fill in the details.
Yes, the ROOT was that change, but you don't understand that if they
JUST did that root, and not the other work, Set theory would not have
been "fixed", as it still wouldn't have been usable.
Defining that no set can be a member of itself would seem
to do the trick.
On 8/17/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 10:45 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is just a LIE. >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/16/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did to conquer Russell's Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are totally
reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. They
created a new definition of what a set was, and then showed what that
implies, since by changing the definitions, all the old work of set
theory has to be thrown out, and then we see what can be established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these are the effects of the change of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could do as
basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, that ZFC is
built on first-order logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set can not be
a member of itself, and that we can count the members of a set.
or was not required to defeat RP.
but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, they needed to define
the full set.
I think you problem is you just don't understand how formal logic works.
I think at a higher level of abstraction.
No, you don't, unless you mean by that not bothering to make sure the
details work.
You can't do fundamental logic in the abstract.
That is just called fluff and bluster.
All that they did is just like I said they redefined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of details of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying that all they did is redefine a set.
Showing the sort of thing YOU need to do to redefine logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I said that ZFC redefined the notion of a set to get rid of RP. >>>>>>>>>>>>> You show the steps of how ZFC redefined a set as your rebuttal. >>>>>>>>>>>>
They developed a full formal system.
They did nothing besides change the definition of
a set and the result of this was a new formal system.
I guess you consider all the papers they wrote describing the effects
of their definitions "nothing"
Not at all and you know this.
One change had many effects yet was still one change.
But would mean nothing without showing the affects of that change. >>>>>>>>
Yet again with your imprecise use of words.
When any tiniest portion of the meaning of an expression
has been defined this teeny tiny piece of the definition
makes this expression not pure random gibberish.
Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
And your statements have NO Meaning because they are based on LIE. >>>>>>
We can not use the "ZFC" set theory from *JUST* the definition, but >>>>>> need all the other rules derived from it.
The root cause of all of the changes is the redefinition
of what a set is. Likewise with my own redefinition of a
formal system by simply defining the details of True(L,x).
Once I specify the architecture others can fill in the details.
Yes, the ROOT was that change, but you don't understand that if they
JUST did that root, and not the other work, Set theory would not have
been "fixed", as it still wouldn't have been usable.
Defining that no set can be a member of itself would seem
to do the trick.
But usable, until integrated into a Formal Logic system.
No. Just tacking it on at the end of set theory gets rid of RP.
On 8/17/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 12:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 10:45 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:No, you don't, unless you mean by that not bothering to make sure the
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability"
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did to conquer Russell's Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are totally
reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. They
created a new definition of what a set was, and then showed what that
implies, since by changing the definitions, all the old work of set
theory has to be thrown out, and then we see what can be established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these are the effects of the change of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could do as
basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, that ZFC is
built on first-order logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set can not be
a member of itself, and that we can count the members of a set.
or was not required to defeat RP.
but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, they needed to define
the full set.
I think you problem is you just don't understand how formal logic works.
I think at a higher level of abstraction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
details work.
You can't do fundamental logic in the abstract. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is just called fluff and bluster.
Showing the sort of thing YOU need to do to redefine logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All that they did is just like I said they redefined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of details of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying that all they did is redefine a set. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I said that ZFC redefined the notion of a set to get rid of RP.
You show the steps of how ZFC redefined a set as your rebuttal.
No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is just a LIE.
They developed a full formal system.
They did nothing besides change the definition of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a set and the result of this was a new formal system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess you consider all the papers they wrote describing the effects
of their definitions "nothing"
Not at all and you know this.
One change had many effects yet was still one change. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
But would mean nothing without showing the affects of that change. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Yet again with your imprecise use of words.
When any tiniest portion of the meaning of an expression >>>>>>>>>>> has been defined this teeny tiny piece of the definition >>>>>>>>>>> makes this expression not pure random gibberish.
Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
And your statements have NO Meaning because they are based on LIE. >>>>>>>>>>
We can not use the "ZFC" set theory from *JUST* the definition, but >>>>>>>>>> need all the other rules derived from it.
The root cause of all of the changes is the redefinition
of what a set is. Likewise with my own redefinition of a
formal system by simply defining the details of True(L,x).
Once I specify the architecture others can fill in the details. >>>>>>>>>
Yes, the ROOT was that change, but you don't understand that if they >>>>>>>> JUST did that root, and not the other work, Set theory would not have >>>>>>>> been "fixed", as it still wouldn't have been usable.
Defining that no set can be a member of itself would seem
to do the trick.
But usable, until integrated into a Formal Logic system.
No. Just tacking it on at the end of set theory gets rid of RP.
Nope, because you can just ignore any axiom you don't want to use.
It is part of the definition of a set thus cannot be correctly
ignored.
In other words, you are just admitting you don't understand how logic works. >>
If you CHANGE an existing axiom, everything that depended on that axiom
needs to be re-verified.
If you ADD a new axiom, it doesn't affect ANY argument that doesn't try
to use it, and thus doesn't affect Russel's Paradox.
OK.
I add the definition for the True(L, x) predicate
and every instance of the notion of True changes
in every formal mathematical logic system.
On 8/17/2024 1:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 2:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
In other words, you are just admitting you don't understand how logic works.
If you CHANGE an existing axiom, everything that depended on that axiom >>>>>> needs to be re-verified.
If you ADD a new axiom, it doesn't affect ANY argument that doesn't try >>>>>> to use it, and thus doesn't affect Russel's Paradox.
OK.
I add the definition for the True(L, x) predicate
and every instance of the notion of True changes
in every formal mathematical logic system.
But either that changes what that instance means,
When I stipulate what True(L,x) means then that is done.
It does not go on and in any circle endlessly redefining itself.
Nope. You can say for YOUR usage, what you mean by True(L,x). You can't
force others to use that,
Likewise ZFC is a mere opinion that most everyone chooses to ignore.
On 8/17/2024 2:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 3:12 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 1:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 2:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
In other words, you are just admitting you don't understand how logic works.
If you CHANGE an existing axiom, everything that depended on that axiom
needs to be re-verified.
If you ADD a new axiom, it doesn't affect ANY argument that doesn't try
to use it, and thus doesn't affect Russel's Paradox.
OK.
I add the definition for the True(L, x) predicate
and every instance of the notion of True changes
in every formal mathematical logic system.
But either that changes what that instance means,
When I stipulate what True(L,x) means then that is done.
It does not go on and in any circle endlessly redefining itself.
Nope. You can say for YOUR usage, what you mean by True(L,x). You can't >>>> force others to use that,
Likewise ZFC is a mere opinion that most everyone chooses to ignore.
No, it isn't an "opinion", it is a set of definitions, and the logic
system that comes out of them.
People are of course allowed to choose which ever set theory they want
to use, but if they choose to use Naive Set Theory, they have the
problem that it is known to be inconsistant, and thus any "proof" they
build is suspect.
They can also shoose some other Set theory Theory, maybe even just ZF,
or to one of the derived theorys like Morse-Kelly, or to something
different like one of the New Foundations Systems. The key is you tend
to need to specify if you differ from ZFC which is generally considered
the default.
You seem to be having trouble with the words you are using.
Not that. I am taking the hypothetical extreme position
to see where you set your own boundaries on this.
or reinterprete what others have said or proven based on you
stipulation, in fact, by stipulating that definition, anythig that uses >>>> any other definition of it becomes out of bounds for your argument.
Everything in logic the depended on some notion of True is
changed. Any logic operations that were not truth preserving
are discarded. The notion of valid inference is also changed
because it was not truth preserving.
And needs to be reproved to see if it is still true.
When a conclusion is not a necessary consequence of all of its
premises then the argument is invalid.
Right, so YOUR argument here is invalid.
It is proven totally true entirely on the basis of the
meaning of its words. Math conventions to the contrary
simply ignore this.
Nope. You are just proving by the meaning of the words that you are
totally ignorant of how logic works.
Sorry, but that is the facts.
Logic is currently defined to work contrary to the way that
truth itself actually works.
On 8/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 4:55 PM, olcott wrote:
It is more of a somewhat poorly defined process than it is a defined term. >>>
Thinks IGNORANT you.
The vast disagreement on very important truths
such as climate change and election denial seems
to prove that the notion of truth lacks a process
sufficiently well defined that it is accessible
to most.
On 8/18/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-17 17:22:14 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/17/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
But usable, until integrated into a Formal Logic system.
No. Just tacking it on at the end of set theory gets rid of RP.
You needn't. It is provable in naive set theory that no set can be
a member of itself. The problem is that in naive set theory you can
also prove that there is a set that is a member of itself. Adding
new definitions or axioms don't affect either proof. In order to
remove a proof you must remove an axiom.
I accept whatever process of fully integrating the
change that Richard said.
On 8/17/2024 6:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 7:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 6:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 6:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 5:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 5:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 4:55 PM, olcott wrote:
It is more of a somewhat poorly defined process than it is a >>>>>>>>>>> defined term.
Thinks IGNORANT you.
The vast disagreement on very important truths
such as climate change and election denial seems
to prove that the notion of truth lacks a process
sufficiently well defined that it is accessible
to most.
But has nothing to do with what Philosophy thinks of as truth, >>>>>>>> but of people being closed minded
The process is not sufficiently well defined such
that divergence from truth smacks people in the face.
Nope, that isn't the problem, it has nothing to do with Logic or
Philosophy, by with Psychology, so trying to improve logic or
Philosophy will not help with it,
When people ignore "facts", you can't help with logic.
YOU prove that point,
Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
They are generally a learned-by-rote bunch. Philosophy of >>>>>>>>>>>>> logic delves into this more deeply the problem. The
learned-by-rote bunch assumes that learning by rote makes >>>>>>>>>>>>> them philosophers. They tend to push actual philosophers >>>>>>>>>>>>> out by denigrating them in the philosophy of logic spaces. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein had no patience with them.
No, you have your never-learned-because-of-ignorance ideas >>>>>>>>>>>> that are just incoherent.
It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic >>>>>>>>>>> and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference. >>>>>>>>>>
Wittgenstein said the same thing.
Try to name any logician that has any history of
being open to critiques of the received view and
you will come up empty.
Your trying to ally with Wittgenstein doesn't really help >>>>>>>>>>>> you, as his ideas were not always accepted, and considered >>>>>>>>>>>> prone to error, not unlike your own.
It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic >>>>>>>>>>> and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference. >>>>>>>>>>>
Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
Your problem is you reject that logic HAS rules that need to >>>>>>>>>> be followed,
Just like I said a learned-by-rote view.
Not any what happens if we change this rule? POV
Note, I said has rules, and different forms of logic have
different rules, something that seems foreign to you.
We change one key rule of logic and then all of the
logical paradoxes suddenly disappear and logic becomes
complete, coherent and consistent.
And limited, too limited to be useful.
Not at all, yet you only care about rebuttal.
The formal systems are essentially the same as
before except they exclude self-contradictory
expressions as bad input.
Nope, because changing a core definition invalidates ANY proof that
used the old version of the definition until it is shown that it
doesn't changee the proof.
The non-existence of a concrete counter-example would prove otherwise.
In this simplified version of my proposal a valid counter-example
is categorically impossible.
Nope, classical fallacy.
When the ONLY change is that self-contradictory expressions
are rejected then this cannot possibly have any effect on
anything not involving self-contradictory expressions.
When all of your eggs are white then none of your eggs are black.
Nope, just shows you don't understand what you are talking about.
If everything that was a true statement before is still a true
statement, then you restrictions did nothing.
Bullshit on that.
Everything that was undecidable before is now rejected as
incorrect. This invalidates the whole notion of undecidability
as a linguistic error.
On 8/17/2024 12:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 10:45 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:05 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is just a LIE.
On 8/16/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did to conquer Russell's Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are totally
reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. They
created a new definition of what a set was, and then showed what that
implies, since by changing the definitions, all the old work of set
theory has to be thrown out, and then we see what can be established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these are the effects of the change of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could do as
basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, that ZFC is
built on first-order logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set can not be
a member of itself, and that we can count the members of a set.
or was not required to defeat RP.
but they couldn't just "add" it to set theory, they needed to define
the full set.
I think you problem is you just don't understand how formal logic works.
I think at a higher level of abstraction.
No, you don't, unless you mean by that not bothering to make sure the
details work.
You can't do fundamental logic in the abstract. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is just called fluff and bluster.
All that they did is just like I said they redefined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a set is. You provided a whole bunch of details of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how they redefined a set as a rebuttal to my statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying that all they did is redefine a set.
Showing the sort of thing YOU need to do to redefine logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I said that ZFC redefined the notion of a set to get rid of RP. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You show the steps of how ZFC redefined a set as your rebuttal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They developed a full formal system.
They did nothing besides change the definition of
a set and the result of this was a new formal system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess you consider all the papers they wrote describing the effects
of their definitions "nothing"
Not at all and you know this.
One change had many effects yet was still one change.
But would mean nothing without showing the affects of that change. >>>>>>>>>>
Yet again with your imprecise use of words.
When any tiniest portion of the meaning of an expression
has been defined this teeny tiny piece of the definition
makes this expression not pure random gibberish.
Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
And your statements have NO Meaning because they are based on LIE. >>>>>>>>
We can not use the "ZFC" set theory from *JUST* the definition, but >>>>>>>> need all the other rules derived from it.
The root cause of all of the changes is the redefinition
of what a set is. Likewise with my own redefinition of a
formal system by simply defining the details of True(L,x).
Once I specify the architecture others can fill in the details.
Yes, the ROOT was that change, but you don't understand that if they >>>>>> JUST did that root, and not the other work, Set theory would not have >>>>>> been "fixed", as it still wouldn't have been usable.
Defining that no set can be a member of itself would seem
to do the trick.
But usable, until integrated into a Formal Logic system.
No. Just tacking it on at the end of set theory gets rid of RP.
Nope, because you can just ignore any axiom you don't want to use.
It is part of the definition of a set thus cannot be correctly
ignored.
On 8/18/2024 5:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-16 22:16:59 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. They
created a new definition of what a set was, and then showed what
that implies, since by changing the definitions, all the old work
of set theory has to be thrown out, and then we see what can be
established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All
of these are the effects of the change of the
definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could do as
basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, that ZFC
is built on first-order logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox.
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set can not
be a member of itself, and that we can count the members of a set.
If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change
or was not required to defeat RP.
That is not sufficient. They also had to Comprehension.
Axiom Schema of Specification: We can build a sub-set from another
set and a set of conditions. (Which implies the existance of the
empty set)
This is added to keep most of Comprenesion but not Russell's set.
All they did was (as I already said) was redefine the notion of a set.
That this can still be called set theory seems redundant.
On 8/18/2024 5:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-16 18:11:46 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
Zermelo constructed a new formal theory that does not have that paradox.
Note that the paradox was not present in Cantor's original theory as
Cantor did not promise that Russell's set exists. But Cantor's original
presentation was not fully formal so it was not clear that Russell's
set does not exist.
I am redefining the notion of a formal system to get
rid of undecidability. This requires few changes.
On 8/15/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-13 12:43:16 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/13/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-12 13:44:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding >>>>>>>>>>>> how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works.
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself, >>>>>>>>>>> would be relevant to Quine's topic?
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that matters >>>>>>>>>>>> to me is that I have defined expressions of language that are >>>>>>>>>>>> {true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language} >>>>>>>>>>>> so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points. >>>>>>>>>>>That does not justify lying.
I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
topic with any distraction that you can find.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the
expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker.
No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of existence of an >>>>>>>> algrithm makes something computable. You can't compute if you con't >>>>>>>> know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm.
There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from
the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal
model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is
how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.
Nice to see that you con't disagree.
When the idea that I presented is fully understood
it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.
If you can't prove atl least that you have an interesting idea
nobody is going to stody it enough to understood.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition
is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
Self-evident propositions are uninteresting.
It turns out that self-evident <is> the notion of {analytic truth}
and all of math and logic only deals in {analytic truth}.
On 8/18/2024 5:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-17 16:51:22 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/17/2024 11:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
Yes, the ROOT was that change, but you don't understand that if they
JUST did that root, and not the other work, Set theory would not have
been "fixed", as it still wouldn't have been usable.
Defining that no set can be a member of itself would seem
to do the trick.
It doesn't if there is another axiom that says or impies that the is a set >> that contains itself, or if several axioms together imply that. If someting >> provably exists then it exists even if you can prove that it does not
exist.
Sure. The formal system must be consistent.
On 8/18/2024 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-17 15:47:51 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/17/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
I guess you consider all the papers they wrote describing the effects >>>>>> of their definitions "nothing"
Not at all and you know this.
One change had many effects yet was still one change.
But would mean nothing without showing the affects of that change.
Yet again with your imprecise use of words.
When any tiniest portion of the meaning of an expression
has been defined this teeny tiny piece of the definition
makes this expression not pure random gibberish.
Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
You are lying. According to that page the word "meaningless"
has two meanings. The other is 'having no real importance or value'.
OK. I always use the base meaning of a term as its only meaning.
That makes things much simpler if everyone knows this standard.
For example a liar must be intentionally deceptive not merely mistaken.
On 8/18/2024 5:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-17 14:45:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>>>
No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is just a LIE.
They developed a full formal system.
They did nothing besides change the definition of
a set and the result of this was a new formal system.
Yes they did. They did show that the new system is similar enough to
the old systems to be called "set theory" and sufficiently useful.
They redefined the notion of a set in set theory and that
by itself got rid of Russell's Paradox. Mostly this disallows
a set to be a member of itself.
I redefine the notion of formal system in math and logic
and this by itself gets rids of undecidability. Mostly this
rejects self-contradictory expressions.
On 8/18/2024 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-17 15:47:51 +0000, olcott said:
Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
You are lying. According to that page the word "meaningless"
has two meanings. The other is 'having no real importance or value'.
My original correction to this issue would be to have an ISO
standard dictionary with standard subscripts for sense meanings.
(3) an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
a person who tells lies.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/liar
When calling someone a liar most people do not assume that
you are accusing them of an honest mistake.
On 8/18/2024 5:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-16 20:39:11 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are totally
reformulate logic.
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
incoherent.
As the notion of set is the all what a set theory is about,
a redefinition of the notion of a set is means Zermelo started
from square one and built an entirely new formal system.
The key functional difference was the result of few changes
and everything else stayed the same. Besides defeating RP
what was another functional result?
On 8/18/2024 5:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-16 22:16:59 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. They
created a new definition of what a set was, and then showed what that >>>>>> implies, since by changing the definitions, all the old work of set >>>>>> theory has to be thrown out, and then we see what can be established. >>>>>>
None of this is changing any more rules. All
of these are the effects of the change of the
definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could do as
basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, that ZFC is >>>> built on first-order logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox.
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set can not be >>>> a member of itself, and that we can count the members of a set.
If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change
or was not required to defeat RP.
That is not sufficient. They also had to Comprehension.
Axiom Schema of Specification: We can build a sub-set from another set >>>> and a set of conditions. (Which implies the existance of the empty set)
This is added to keep most of Comprenesion but not Russell's set.
All they did was (as I already said) was redefine the notion of a set.
That this can still be called set theory seems redundant.
When I specify semantic tautologies and people say that
they are lies they make themselves look either foolish
or dishonest.
On 8/19/2024 3:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-18 11:47:36 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/18/2024 5:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-17 14:45:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>>>
No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is just a LIE. >>>>>>
They developed a full formal system.
They did nothing besides change the definition of
a set and the result of this was a new formal system.
Yes they did. They did show that the new system is similar enough to
the old systems to be called "set theory" and sufficiently useful.
They redefined the notion of a set in set theory and that
by itself got rid of Russell's Paradox. Mostly this disallows
a set to be a member of itself.
The new notion is restricted to their new system. The general informal
notion of "set" is unaffected. Some sets, e.q. Quine's atom that
contains itself and nothing else is not a set in Zermelo's theory
but is an example of a set according to the general notion.
I redefine the notion of formal system in math and logic
and this by itself gets rids of undecidability. Mostly this
rejects self-contradictory expressions.
Math and logic are not formal systems that could be replaced with
other formal systems. The notion of formal system cannot be redefined.
You can construct a new formal system where formal system is formally
defined but that definition has no consequences outside that syatem.
I am doing the same sort of thing that ZFC did to conquer
RP and my end result is that undecidability ceases to exist.
On 8/19/2024 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-18 11:34:55 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/18/2024 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-17 15:47:51 +0000, olcott said:
Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
You are lying. According to that page the word "meaningless"
has two meanings. The other is 'having no real importance or value'.
My original correction to this issue would be to have an ISO
standard dictionary with standard subscripts for sense meanings.
Just state in the beginning your opus which dictinary gives the
correct meaning of your words. You may also state that only the
first meaning applies.
(3) an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
a person who tells lies.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/liar
When calling someone a liar most people do not assume that
you are accusing them of an honest mistake.
People have different tolerances about "honest". People may call you
"dishonest" or a "liar" if they regard your mistake as a consequence
of a lack of reasonable care. People also have different opinions
about "reasonable".
When I specify semantic tautologies and people say that
they are lies they make themselves look either foolish
or dishonest.
On 8/19/2024 3:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-18 11:26:22 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/18/2024 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-17 15:47:51 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/17/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
I guess you consider all the papers they wrote describing the
effects of their definitions "nothing"
Not at all and you know this.
One change had many effects yet was still one change.
But would mean nothing without showing the affects of that change. >>>>>>
Yet again with your imprecise use of words.
When any tiniest portion of the meaning of an expression
has been defined this teeny tiny piece of the definition
makes this expression not pure random gibberish.
Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
You are lying. According to that page the word "meaningless"
has two meanings. The other is 'having no real importance or value'.
OK. I always use the base meaning of a term as its only meaning.
That makes things much simpler if everyone knows this standard.
People have different opions about which meaning is the "base"
meaning.
The most commonly used sense meaning at the first
index in the dictionary.
For example a liar must be intentionally deceptive not merely mistaken.
For example people may regard you as a liar if you say something untrue
when you were too lazy to check the facts.
I am redefining the foundations of logic thus my definitions
are stipulated to override and supersede the original definitions.
It took a long time to reverse-engineer the subtle nuances of
the exact details of what needed to be changed.
It took me two years just to define the term {analytic true}
so that is became a semantic tautology. For the prior years
to that most everyone simply disbelieved that there actually
was an {analytic} side of the analytic/synthetic distinction. https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/
On 8/19/2024 3:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-18 11:47:36 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/18/2024 5:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-17 14:45:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>>>
No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is just a LIE. >>>>>>
They developed a full formal system.
They did nothing besides change the definition of
a set and the result of this was a new formal system.
Yes they did. They did show that the new system is similar enough to
the old systems to be called "set theory" and sufficiently useful.
They redefined the notion of a set in set theory and that
by itself got rid of Russell's Paradox. Mostly this disallows
a set to be a member of itself.
The new notion is restricted to their new system. The general informal
notion of "set" is unaffected. Some sets, e.q. Quine's atom that
contains itself and nothing else is not a set in Zermelo's theory
but is an example of a set according to the general notion.
I redefine the notion of formal system in math and logic
and this by itself gets rids of undecidability. Mostly this
rejects self-contradictory expressions.
Math and logic are not formal systems that could be replaced with
other formal systems. The notion of formal system cannot be redefined.
You can construct a new formal system where formal system is formally
defined but that definition has no consequences outside that syatem.
I am doing the same sort of thing that ZFC did to conquer
RP and my end result is that undecidability ceases to exist.
On 8/18/2024 1:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/18/24 7:51 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/18/2024 5:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-16 22:16:59 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel.
They created a new definition of what a set was, and then showed >>>>>>>> what that implies, since by changing the definitions, all the
old work of set theory has to be thrown out, and then we see
what can be established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All
of these are the effects of the change of the
definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could do as >>>>>> basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, that
ZFC is built on first-order logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox.
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set can
not be a member of itself, and that we can count the members of a
set.
If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change
or was not required to defeat RP.
That is not sufficient. They also had to Comprehension.
Axiom Schema of Specification: We can build a sub-set from another >>>>>> set and a set of conditions. (Which implies the existance of the
empty set)
This is added to keep most of Comprenesion but not Russell's set.
All they did was (as I already said) was redefine the notion of a set.
That this can still be called set theory seems redundant.
Nope, the redefined the notion of a set, AN THEN WORKED OUT WHAT THAT
MEANS TO SET THEORY.
You don't seem to understand the work involved in that, which is why
you don't understand what you need to do to make your change.
Note the generic term "Set Theory" doesn't define a particular set of
rules except by common agreement. Prior to Russel, that generic term
refered to what is now called "Naive Set Theory". Russel showed that
system was broken.
Z/F worked out a new set of axioms (using SOME of the old ones, some
slightly modified, and some new ones). Then they worked out many of
the properties of that system so it was actually usable. Thus ZF-Set
Theory, and ZFC-Set Theory were born. (and later some other variants).
Because it was decided by the general community to be so useful, the
default meaning of "Set Theory" changed (as words in Natural
Lanugages, i.e. outside Formal System tend to do).
If you want to propose a new logic system with different definitions,
you need to do the same thing. You need to first formally define what
your axioms of your basic system are, then show what you can do with
those.
Then you need to show why your system is better than the existing one.
You don't have the breaking inconsistancy that Russel showed in Naive
Set Theory, so you need to make a good demonstration showing that your
system has some advantage, being able to do something that
conventional logic can't do, and that at least most of the things we
do with conventional logic still apply.
My guess is this last point is going to be a problem, as Proofs like
those of Godel and Tarski show that with very basic operations, system
that support the full properties of Natual Numbers experience the
issues you claim your definition solves, so either it doesn't remove
them (and thus doesn't get any advantages) or it can't support the
properties of the Natural Numbers, which makes it a very limited logic
system.
Before anyone can work out the details of the effects of
what my proposed change to the definition of a formal
system involves it cannot be rejected out-of-hand as incorrect
without review.
On 8/19/2024 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-18 12:12:48 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/18/2024 5:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-16 18:11:46 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
Zermelo constructed a new formal theory that does not have that
paradox.
Note that the paradox was not present in Cantor's original theory as
Cantor did not promise that Russell's set exists. But Cantor's original >>>> presentation was not fully formal so it was not clear that Russell's
set does not exist.
I am redefining the notion of a formal system to get
rid of undecidability. This requires few changes.
Put a draft and a request for discussion on a web site.
I post here to establish my priority date for intellectual
property purposes. Websites can go out-of-business.
On 8/19/2024 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-18 12:18:02 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/15/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-13 12:43:16 +0000, olcott said:
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition
is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning >>>>> without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
Self-evident propositions are uninteresting.
It turns out that self-evident <is> the notion of {analytic truth}
and all of math and logic only deals in {analytic truth}.
A large part of what math and logic deals in is not self-evident.
For examle, most people would not regard it self-evident that in
classical geometry it is impossible to construct a square that
has the same area as a given circle.
By self-evident I do not mean that people can understand it.
I only mean that it is semantically entailed by a set of axioms.
A better term than self-evident is semantic tautology.
On 8/19/2024 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-18 11:51:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/18/2024 5:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-16 22:16:59 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel.
They created a new definition of what a set was, and then showed >>>>>>>> what that implies, since by changing the definitions, all the
old work of set theory has to be thrown out, and then we see
what can be established.
None of this is changing any more rules. All
of these are the effects of the change of the
definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could do as >>>>>> basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, that
ZFC is built on first-order logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox.
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set can
not be a member of itself, and that we can count the members of a
set.
If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change
or was not required to defeat RP.
That is not sufficient. They also had to Comprehension.
Axiom Schema of Specification: We can build a sub-set from another >>>>>> set and a set of conditions. (Which implies the existance of the
empty set)
This is added to keep most of Comprenesion but not Russell's set.
All they did was (as I already said) was redefine the notion of a set.
That this can still be called set theory seems redundant.
They did, as both Richard Damon and I already said, much more. They
also explained their rationale, worked out various consequnces of
their axioms and compared them to expectations, and developed better
sets of axioms.
They made no other changes to the notion of set theory
than redefining what a set is. Even then it seems they
did less than this.
From what I recall it seems that they only changed how
sets can be constructed. The operations that can be
performed on sets remained the same.
One consequence of ZF axioms is that there is no set that contains all
other sets as members. Some regard this as a defect and have developed
set thories that have a universal set that contains all other sets as
members (and usually itself, too).
Then maybe they did this incorrectly. They only needed to
specify that a set cannot be a member of itself when a
set is constructed. This would not preclude a universal
set of all other sets.
Some common forms of second order logic use sets. Those sets are
different
from the sets of ZFC. In ZFC all members of sets are sets but in such
second order logic a set cannot be a memeber of set.
On 8/19/2024 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-18 11:34:55 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/18/2024 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-17 15:47:51 +0000, olcott said:
Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
You are lying. According to that page the word "meaningless"
has two meanings. The other is 'having no real importance or value'.
My original correction to this issue would be to have an ISO
standard dictionary with standard subscripts for sense meanings.
Just state in the beginning your opus which dictinary gives the
correct meaning of your words. You may also state that only the
first meaning applies.
(3) an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
a person who tells lies.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/liar
When calling someone a liar most people do not assume that
you are accusing them of an honest mistake.
People have different tolerances about "honest". People may call you
"dishonest" or a "liar" if they regard your mistake as a consequence
of a lack of reasonable care. People also have different opinions
about "reasonable".
When I specify semantic tautologies and people say that
they are lies they make themselves look either foolish
or dishonest.
On 8/19/2024 3:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-18 11:26:22 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/18/2024 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-17 15:47:51 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/17/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
I guess you consider all the papers they wrote describing the effects >>>>>>>> of their definitions "nothing"
Not at all and you know this.
One change had many effects yet was still one change.
But would mean nothing without showing the affects of that change. >>>>>>
Yet again with your imprecise use of words.
When any tiniest portion of the meaning of an expression
has been defined this teeny tiny piece of the definition
makes this expression not pure random gibberish.
Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
You are lying. According to that page the word "meaningless"
has two meanings. The other is 'having no real importance or value'.
OK. I always use the base meaning of a term as its only meaning.
That makes things much simpler if everyone knows this standard.
People have different opions about which meaning is the "base"
meaning.
The most commonly used sense meaning at the first
index in the dictionary.
For example a liar must be intentionally deceptive not merely mistaken.
For example people may regard you as a liar if you say something untrue
when you were too lazy to check the facts.
I am redefining the foundations of logic thus my definitions
are stipulated to override and supersede the original definitions.
It took a long time to reverse-engineer the subtle nuances of
the exact details of what needed to be changed.
On 8/19/2024 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-18 12:18:02 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/15/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-13 12:43:16 +0000, olcott said:
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition
is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning >>>>> without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
Self-evident propositions are uninteresting.
It turns out that self-evident <is> the notion of {analytic truth}
and all of math and logic only deals in {analytic truth}.
A large part of what math and logic deals in is not self-evident.
For examle, most people would not regard it self-evident that in
classical geometry it is impossible to construct a square that
has the same area as a given circle.
By self-evident I do not mean that people can understand it.
I only mean that it is semantically entailed by a set of axioms.
A better term than self-evident is semantic tautology.
On 8/19/2024 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-18 12:12:48 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/18/2024 5:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-16 18:11:46 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability"
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
Zermelo constructed a new formal theory that does not have that paradox. >>>> Note that the paradox was not present in Cantor's original theory as
Cantor did not promise that Russell's set exists. But Cantor's original >>>> presentation was not fully formal so it was not clear that Russell's
set does not exist.
I am redefining the notion of a formal system to get
rid of undecidability. This requires few changes.
Put a draft and a request for discussion on a web site.
I post here to establish my priority date for intellectual
property purposes. Websites can go out-of-business.
On 8/19/2024 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-18 11:51:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/18/2024 5:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-16 22:16:59 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/16/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 5:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 4:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
incoherent.
I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. They >>>>>>>> created a new definition of what a set was, and then showed what that >>>>>>>> implies, since by changing the definitions, all the old work of set >>>>>>>> theory has to be thrown out, and then we see what can be established. >>>>>>>>
None of this is changing any more rules. All
of these are the effects of the change of the
definition of a set.
No, they defined not only what WAS a set, but what you could do as >>>>>> basic operations ON a set.
Axiom of extensibility: the definition of sets being equal, that ZFC is >>>>>> built on first-order logic.
This one is the key that conquered Russell's Paradox.
Axion of regularity/Foundation: This is the rule that a set can not be >>>>>> a member of itself, and that we can count the members of a set.
If anything else changed it changed on the basis of this change
or was not required to defeat RP.
That is not sufficient. They also had to Comprehension.
This is added to keep most of Comprenesion but not Russell's set.Axiom Schema of Specification: We can build a sub-set from another set >>>>>> and a set of conditions. (Which implies the existance of the empty set) >>>>
All they did was (as I already said) was redefine the notion of a set.
That this can still be called set theory seems redundant.
They did, as both Richard Damon and I already said, much more. They
also explained their rationale, worked out various consequnces of
their axioms and compared them to expectations, and developed better
sets of axioms.
They made no other changes to the notion of set theory
than redefining what a set is. Even then it seems they
did less than this.
From what I recall it seems that they only changed how
sets can be constructed. The operations that can be
performed on sets remained the same.
One consequence of ZF axioms is that there is no set that contains all
other sets as members. Some regard this as a defect and have developed
set thories that have a universal set that contains all other sets as
members (and usually itself, too).
Then maybe they did this incorrectly. They only needed to
specify that a set cannot be a member of itself when a
set is constructed. This would not preclude a universal
set of all other sets.
On 8/20/2024 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-19 13:04:53 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/19/2024 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-18 11:34:55 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/18/2024 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-17 15:47:51 +0000, olcott said:
Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless
You are lying. According to that page the word "meaningless"
has two meanings. The other is 'having no real importance or value'. >>>>>>
My original correction to this issue would be to have an ISO
standard dictionary with standard subscripts for sense meanings.
Just state in the beginning your opus which dictinary gives the
correct meaning of your words. You may also state that only the
first meaning applies.
(3) an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
a person who tells lies.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/liar
When calling someone a liar most people do not assume that
you are accusing them of an honest mistake.
People have different tolerances about "honest". People may call you
"dishonest" or a "liar" if they regard your mistake as a consequence
of a lack of reasonable care. People also have different opinions
about "reasonable".
When I specify semantic tautologies and people say that
they are lies they make themselves look either foolish
or dishonest.
More often you make yourself look foolish or dishonest or both.
Being dishonest is foolish if others can immediately notice it.
Your failure to understand what I am saying does not make me incorrect.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 22:17:03 |
| Calls: | 12,105 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,126 |