On 3/1/25 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/1/2025 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/1/25 4:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/1/2025 6:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/28/25 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/28/2025 8:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/27/25 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/27/2025 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/27/25 9:33 AM, olcott wrote:>>

Yes logic is broken when it does not require a truth-maker
for every truth. It is also broken when its idiomatic meaning >>>>>>>>> of the term "provable" diverges from the meaning of the term >>>>>>>>> truth-maker. That every truth must have a truth-maker is outside >>>>>>>>> the scope of what you understand.

But it does, it just you don't seem to understand what a truth >>>>>>>> makee is?

Where was a statement without a truth-maker used?

Logic remains clueless about the philosophical
notion of truth makers and truth bearers and this is
why logic gets these things incorrectly.

No, you remain clueless about the notion of Logic and its rules.

Only because logic defines "True" in a way that goes against the
way that True really works is it impossible to define a truth
predicate in logic.

No, it doesn't

The biggest mistake that logic makes is failing to understand
that an expression can only be true when it has a truth bearer.

No it doesn't, it just allows the truth bearer to be an infinite
number of steps away from the statement.

When we don't make a screwy term-of-the-art meaning
of provable(math) that diverges from provable(common)
{whatever the Hell makes X true} then incompleteness(math)
ceases to exist.

What is divergent?

Proveable(common) is *NOT* "whatever make X true", but what SHOWS X to
be true, and to show something requires the showing to be a finite
arguement, as we can't "see" an infinite one.

So, your problem is just you don't understand the meaning of the words
you are using.

I had to over simplify it so that you could get the gist of the idea.

All of these decades since Carnap and Quine not one person that
I know of has ever understood that the essence of analytic truth
is simply relations between finite strings.

Analytic knowledge is always a finite sequence of relations
between finite strings. Analytic truth can include infinite
sequences of relations between finite strings.

Analytical KNOWLEDGE.

There is a difference between KNOWEDGE and TRUTH.

The closest existing term is the term "proof". Even the finite
sequence of finite strings is a notion much broader than any
conventional notion of "proof" yet there are no existing terms
that encompass this meaning.

No, the problem is you don't really understand what you are saying, as
your logic is based on a fundamentally unsound basis, that you can't
look at or you would realize your error.

You are just to stupid and stubborn to see you stupidity and stubbornness.

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