On 3/1/25 10:03 AM, olcott wrote:
On 3/1/2025 6:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/28/25 7:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/28/2025 5:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/28/25 5:04 PM, olcott wrote:
The bottom line here is that expressions that do not have
a truth-maker are always untrue. Logic screws this up by
overriding the common meaning of terms with incompatible
meanings. Provable(common) means has a truth-maker.
But the problem is you try to make statements that have been shown
to have a truth-make untrue, because you don't understand the
conneciton to the truth-maker.
Your complete ignorance of the philosophy of logic has
never been my ignorance of logic. Logic says carefully
memorize the rules and do not violate these rules.
Philosophy of logic says: What happens when we totally
change these rules in many different ways?
Do we get a different result when we totally change all
of these rules?
What if unprovable meant untrue?
Would that get rid of undecidability?
And thus you admit that NONE of your statement applies to the fields
they apply to,
Philosophy of logic corrects the issues with logic.
When we retain the original meanings of the terms
then provable(common) is the truth-maker for true(common).
It is only the weird idiomatic divergence from these common
meanings of common terms using terms-of-the-art meanings
that enables incompleteness(math) and undecidability(logic)
to exist.
And the Philosophy of Logic has no power of the Logic System that define themselfs. Your problem is it seems you don't even understand the
Philosophy of Logic, because you can't even use it correctly.
The fact that you "logic" has been shown to be based on lies, and you
have never defended those lies by even trying to show a reputable source
to back them up, just shows that you are nothing but an ignorant
pathetic pathological lying idiot with a total disregard for the truth.
That will be your eternal memory that you leave behind.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)