On 12/18/22 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/17/2022 12:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/17/22 12:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/17/2022 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/17/22 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/16/22 11:29 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 15:06:27 UTC+2,
>>>>>>> richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/16/22 12:28 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2,
>>>>>>>>> richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference
>>>>>>>>>> between Truth
>>>>>>>>>> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
>>>>>>>>> Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin
>>>>>>>>> full of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't
>>>>>>>>> know how to separate them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't know the (binary) classification rule for
>>>>>>>>> recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But just asking someone to do that shows a lack of understanding
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> nature of Truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not all Truth is Known, or even Knowable, therefore no one has the
>>>>>>>> ability to completely sort every statement into the bins True
>>>>>>>> and False
>>>>>>>> (or not True).
>>>>>>> This is so peculiar. If not all Truth is known or Knowable why
>>>>>>> are you equating "not True" with False?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because if a statement is a Truth Bearer, its only possibe values
>>>>>> are True or False. There is no other option. PERIOD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We might not know the value of it, but it has one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Elements of the body of analytic truth are only true on the basis of
>>>>> their semantic connections to other elements. When some of these
>>>>> connections are unknown then these elements are in the body of
>>>>> truth yet
>>>>> missing from the body of knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the problem is you are talking about fields that don't limit
>>>> themselves to "analytic truth".
>>>
>>> It is common knowledge that math is a subset of analytic truth and your
>>> ignorance of this basic fact is no rebuttal at all.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe YOU think it is, but it isn't by your definition of Anayltical
>> Truth.
>>
>> So your claim, with your definitions, is just WRONG.
>>
>> You inability to understand this just proves your ignorance and
>> stupidity.
>
> It is stipulated that every expression of language that can be
> determined to be true entirely based on its meaning without requiring
> sense data form the sense organs is an analytic expression of language.
>
> Within the above stipulated definition all of mathematics and logic are
> analytic expressions of language.

So, how can the truth or falsehood of the Collatz conjecture be
determined "entirely based on its meaning"?

Seems you have stipulated yourself to be a liar.

>
> I see four rabbits on my lawn is an empirical expression of language
> because it requires eyesight. 27 + 3 = 30 is analytic because it does
> not require sense data from the sense organs to verify that it is true.
>
>

So, is the fact that a proof exist based on senses or not?

If the mental process of searching the "space" of the system for a proof
is considered analytic, then the Collatz conjecture might be provable
false by finding a counter example, or it might be found true because
the infinte exhaustive search shoes that no such example exists.

But an infinite search is NOT a valid proof, as a proof must have a
finite number of steps.

There is NOTHING in your definition that requires a finite number of
steps to make a analytic expression true, only to be known.

On 12/18/22 10:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/17/2022 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/17/22 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2022 7:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/22 12:28 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference between
>>>>>> Truth
>>>>>> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
>>>>> Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin
>>>>> full of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't know
>>>>> how to separate them.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't know the (binary) classification rule for
>>>>> recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But just asking someone to do that shows a lack of understanding of
>>>> the nature of Truth.
>>>>
>>>> Not all Truth is Known, or even Knowable, therefore no one has the
>>>> ability to completely sort every statement into the bins True and
>>>> False (or not True).
>>>
>>> Every element of the body of analytic truth is only true on the basis of
>>> its semantic connections to other elements of the body of analytic
>>> truth. Tracing through these connections is the proof of this truth.
>>>
>>> If these connections do not exist then an expression of language is
>>> not a truth bearer.
>>>
>>
>> Why? or maybe Why by this definition do you think it applies to
>> Mathematics?
>>
>> You are defining that "Expressions of Language" are true or not by the
>> meaning of their words.
>>
>> What in the meaning of the words"
>>
>
> Expressions of language that cannot possibly be shown to be true on the
> basis of their meaning are excluded form the body of analytic truth by
> definition.

So the Collatz conjecture is excluded (as well as a lot of other math)?

Does that mean that Mathematics is not a body of Analytic Truth by your
own definitions.

>
>>> Every positive even integer can be written as the sum of two primes.
>>
>> Determines if this statement is True or not?
>>
>> It seems that it hangs on the EXISTANCE or not of an even number that
>> can't be expresses as the sum of two primes.
>>
>> To then say that it must be determinable by a FINITE sequence of
>> steps, is a contradiction of definitions.
>
> This is the border case. It is obvious that it is not currently an
> element of the body of analytic knowledge. It might be an element of the
> body of analytic truth or not depending on exactly what "possibly be
> shown to be true" means. I would say that because an infinite
> enumeration cannot possibly occur that it may not be a truth bearer.
>

Which shows the difference between TRUTH and KNOWLEDGE. Something you
have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding.

On 12/18/22 10:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/17/2022 10:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/17/22 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2022 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/22 2:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/15/2022 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/15/22 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which means you just stipulated that you are not working on the
>>>>>>>> ACTUAL Halting Problem,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am talking about the definition of the term {analytical} as in
>>>>>>> the analytic versus empirical distinction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the Halting Problem isn't about such a distinction, ait
>>>>>> shows you don't know what you are talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not been talking about the halting problem anywhere in this
>>>>> entire thread.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, it also means you are not talking about Godel, as that is
>>>> mathematics, which is also not a "Pure Analytic" domain, as
>>>> Mathematics isn't.
>>>
>>> It is common knowledge that mathematics is a subset of analytical truth.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, not ny YOUR definition at least.
>
> It is stipulated that every expression of language that can be
> determined to be true entirely based on its meaning without requiring
> sense data form the sense organs is an analytic expression of language.
>
> Within the above stipulated definition all of mathematics and logic are
> analytic expressions of language.
>
> I see four rabbits on my lawn is an empirical expression of language
> because it requires eyesight. 27 + 3 = 30 is analytic because it does
> not require sense data from the sense organs to verify that it is true.
>

See other answers that show the problem with this logic.

On 12/18/22 8:45 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 17:01:36 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> Nope, your assertion is self referential/circular ergo it is a category
>> error.
> It is self-referential. Ergo the system is capable of reflection.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_programming
>
> You call it an error. I call it a feature.
>
> The user is always right and I am the user.

And the user shows that he is using an information free system so
nothing he may have has any actual value.

On 12/18/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/17/2022 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/17/22 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/22 2:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/15/2022 10:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, because you are defining it in a way that you are requiring
>>>>>> Mathematics to be based on it, but make it so that it can't be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are showing your stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like I said you only know these things on the basis of learned-by-rote
>>>>> dogmatic rules thus haven't the slightest clue whether or not these
>>>>> rules are consistent. When I point out that these rules are
>>>>> inconsistent
>>>>> you say that I am wrong because the rules do not say that they are
>>>>> inconsistent.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And by that statement you are ADMITTING that you aren't using the a
>>>> actual definitions of the field, and thus your statments don't have
>>>> application to the field.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are merely asserting learned-by-rote that is anchored in ignorance
>>> of the mandatory philosophical underpinnings.
>>
>> Nope, you are conflating your never-learned-because-of-ignorance for
>> truth.
>>
>> You have proved this ignorance.
>>
>>>
>>> I am established the foundation of correct reasoning that every logical
>>> system must conform to otherwise it is incorrect.
>>>
>>
>> And admitting you don't understand the existing systems, so LYING
>> about your reasoning being applicable.
>>
>
> Because my reasoning is categorical it applies to the infinite set of
> all analytic truth. Every expression of language that cannot possibly be
> proven or refuted is not a truth bearer. This include every logical
> system that currently exists or all those that could be defined in the
> future.
>

Nope, you reasoning is flawed because it is limited by your lack of
understanding of the actual nature of logic, and things like the infinite.

That actually also shows that you CAN'T be the "God" you claim, as you
become a contradiction. The Creator is greater than the cration,

>>
>>> To say that an expression of language is true and unprovable is the same
>>> sort of thing as saying that there is a person X that is both morbidly
>>> obese and grossly underweight a contradiction in terms.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, just shows how STUPID you are.
>>
>>> Every element of the body of analytic truth is only true on the basis of
>>> its semantic connections to other elements of the body of analytic
>>> truth. Tracing through these connections is the proof of this truth.
>>
>> Confusing Truth with Knowledge.
>>
>
> Every element of the body of analytic truth is only true on the basis of
> its semantic connections to other elements of the body of analytic
> truth. Tracing through these connections is the proof of this truth.

And Truth can use an infinite number of connections, so might be unprovable.

>
>>>
>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>
>>>> Any claims otherwize just proves you are a STUPID LIAR that doesn't
>>>> understand how logic works.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That you are utterly clueless about the philosophical foundations of
>>> correct reasoning does not make me a liar.
>>
>> The fact that you claims things that you have no athority to claim does.
>
> The nature of truth itself is my full authority.

Truth is what is True. You don't get to change the definition of it.

In a field that accepts its version of "Empirical" (which in another
sense is infinite modeled analytics), you don't get to say that it doesn't

>
>>>
>>>> YOU ARE NOT GOD, and thus can't change the rules of the game.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When the rules are shown to be incorrect then these rules can be
>>> corrected.
>>
>> Nope, not unilaterally.
>>
>> You have just proved you are working outside the systems, so none of
>> your work has any value, as you haven't shown that any of the things
>> you are trying to talk about can even actually exist in your new logic
>> system.
>
> There cannot possibly exist any counter-example to this statement:
>
> Every element of the body of analytic truth is only true on the basis of
> its semantic connections to other elements of the body of analytic
> truth. Tracing through these connections is the proof of this truth.

But that only talks about "Analytic Truth", not all Truth is Analytic.

Also, that definition allows for an infinte chain of connects to make
something True, but such a chain is NOT a proof, as proofs are by
definition, finite.

>
>>>
>>>> If you want to claim you are, you will need to PROVE it.
>>>
>>
>

On 12/18/22 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/17/2022 10:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/17/22 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/22 10:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/15/2022 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/15/22 8:04 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 14:59:36 UTC+2,
>>>>>>> richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Nope, because in mathematics with infinites you don't have those
>>>>>>>> properties.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is one of the problems with infinities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are assuming that all the properties of the finite numbers
>>>>>>>> hold,
>>>>>>>> which they don't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where's the objective arbiter on such things?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That they generate contradictions, and thus make the system
>>>>>> worthless due to the power of the principle of explosion, since
>>>>>> there can be no actual information or knowledge in such a system.
>>>>>
>>>>> The principle of explosion is incorrect because semantics are ignored.
>>>>
>>>> So, you don't understand how logic works.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is because logic does not consistently know how correct reasoning
>>> works. This correctly eliminates the principle of explosion:
>>
>> So, you are just proving you don't understand how logic works.
>>
>> You are proving your ignorance.
>>
>
> The principle of explosion is self-evidently semantically incorrect.
> Here is how to fix it: (A ∧ ¬A) := ε // empty string
> thus (A ∧ ¬A) → B, B does not logically follow from the empty string.

So, you don't understand the proof of the principle of explosion, as
your example doesn't follow the form.

You are just disproving a straw man

On 12/18/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:

> It may be the case "there is no finite proof of Goldbach's conjecture"
> is true and unknowable because the answer requires an infinite proof.
>

Which means you accept that there may exist a statement (which actually
allows for statements) that is actually TRUE but which can not be
actually PROVEN and thus is unknowable.

This is because proofs, by definition, are finite.

Thus, you admit that your logic system might be incomplete.

In faxt, because of Godel's proof, which is similar, it is shown that it
MUST be incomplete.

How does it feel to admit that you whole work is proven wrong by your
own words.

On 12/18/22 10:47 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/17/2022 12:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/17/22 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/17/2022 10:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/17/22 10:47 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/16/22 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/16/2022 7:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/16/22 12:28 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2,
>>>>>>>>> richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference
>>>>>>>>>> between Truth
>>>>>>>>>> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
>>>>>>>>> Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin
>>>>>>>>> full of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't
>>>>>>>>> know how to separate them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't know the (binary) classification rule for
>>>>>>>>> recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But just asking someone to do that shows a lack of understanding
>>>>>>>> of the nature of Truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not all Truth is Known, or even Knowable, therefore no one has
>>>>>>>> the ability to completely sort every statement into the bins
>>>>>>>> True and False (or not True).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True/False/Not a truth bearer/Currently Unknown
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The last is NOT a possible value of Truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>>>>> It is currently unknown whether or not Goldbach's conjecture is
>>>>> provable.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Goldbach's conjecture can only be proven though a complete
>>>>> enumeration of every natural number then this makes Goldbach's
>>>>> conjecture not a truth bearer.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> Either it is True or it Isn't.
>>>>
>>>> Either there exists an even number that can not be expressed as the
>>>> sum of two primes (which proves the Conjecture False), or there
>>>> doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> If there doesn't exist such a number, even if it takes an infinite
>>>> number of operations to show that, it is True.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This may be an unknowable truth. In any case we are getting too far
>>> off track.
>>
>> Why? IF you admit that a Truth might be unknowable, that is PRECISELY
>> the point. An unknowable Truth will be unprovable, as all provable
>> things are knowable by discovering the proof.
>>
>
> Every element of the body of analytic truth is only true on the basis of
> its semantic connections to other elements of the body of analytic
> truth. Tracing through these connections is the proof of this truth.

And truth can be established with an infinite chain of steps, but a
proof requires a finite list.

Unless you are going to limit yourself to systems with only a finite
number of possible statements, you run into this issue.

>
> The above excludes every undecidable proposition, Goldbach is an
> undecided proposition.

Why do you say Goldback is an undecidable proposition.

If it is false, that is clearly demonstrable with a finite proof, just
starting with one of the counter-examples.

If it is true, this truth can be established by the exhaustive search of
the infinite number space, a valid analytic truth process, even if not a
valid proof.

>
>>>
>>> G ↔ ((F ⊬ G) ∧ (F ⊬ ¬G))
>>> G is true if and only if G is unprovable and irrefutable in F
>>> ∃G ∈ F (G ↔ ((F ⊬ G) ∧ (F ⊬ ¬G))) is simply false
>>>
>>> based on this foundational theorem
>>> ∀φ ∈ T ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊢ ¬φ))
>>>
>>> 'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved in Russell's
>>> system; and 'false in Russell's system' means: the opposite has been
>>> proved in Russell's system.
>>
>> Which isn't the definition of Truth is Russell's system, so A LIE.
>>
>
> It is fundamentally the way the truth works and people that only know
> math on the basis of learned-by-rote rules simply don't have the
> capacity to examine the correctness of these rules.

Nope, Truth is what IS TRUE, it has nothing to do with what has been or
can be proven.

>
>> It is Wittgenstein injecting his own ideas into a system.
>
> Wittgenstein and I examine the foundations of correct reasoning, math
> and logic people make sure to utterly ignore these foundations because
> they lack the capacity to examine them.
>
> "All lemons are yellow" and
> "Not all lemons are yellow"
> ∴ "unicorns exist"
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>
> Is semantic nonsense.

becaue you skipped the steps in between.

Which step break the rules?

YOU are spouting semantic nonsense.

>
>>>
>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

On 12/18/22 8:44 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 15:59:40 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 12/17/22 3:30 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 02:16:51 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/22 11:44 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 15:06:48 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Then your system can't do logic.
>>>>> What's your classification rule for "doing" vs "not doing" logic?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't understand that the Principle of Explosion isn't an INPUT to a
>>>>>> logic system, but something demonstratable from the basic fabric of a
>>>>>> logic system.
>>>>> The principle of explosion is not demonstrable in para-consistent logic, so you clearly thing that para-consistent logic is not logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Weird. It has "logic" in its name.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You demostrate that you logic systm is worthless by the ilogic it generates.
>>>>> Look. I have no idea what your objective measure for "worth" is, but in so far as logic systems have semantic properties some explode due to inconsistencies and some don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps some people find worth in logic systems which don't explode? Peculiar idea, I know!
>>>> But since yours DO, it doesn't matter.
>>> They don't. By design.
>> No, yours DO explode, but you are apparentlly too stupid to see it.
> You are too stupid to see that they don't.
>
>> All you are doing is adding more explosive power by adding the
>> INCONSISTANT "rule" that they can't.
>
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/
>
> "Paraconsistent logic challenges this standard view. A logical consequence relation is said to be paraconsistent if it is not explosive. Thus, if a consequence relation is paraconsistent, then even in circumstances where the available information is inconsistent, the consequence relation does not explode into triviality. Thus, paraconsistent logic accommodates inconsistency in a controlled way that treats inconsistent information as potentially informative."
>
> Particular applications include automated reasoning and AI.
>
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/#ArtiInte

SO, do these theoretical paraconsistent logic systems have the power to
actually define the Natural Number system with all their know properties?

>
>> In other words, your systems are FUNDAMENTALLY flawed because they are
>> based on incorrect assumptions.
> There's no such thing as "incorrect" assumptions.
>
> Assumptions just are... assumptions. They have implications and systems built upon those building blocks have particular properties.
>
> In particular - the property of paraconsistent logic is the lack of explosivity.

But do they have the needed properties to do the operations desired by
the theoretical mathematitian?

On Sunday, 18 December 2022 at 17:20:58 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> On 12/17/2022 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 12/17/22 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
> >> On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>> On 12/16/22 2:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 12/15/2022 10:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nope, because you are defining it in a way that you are requiring
> >>>>> Mathematics to be based on it, but make it so that it can't be.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are showing your stupidity.
> >>>>
> >>>> Like I said you only know these things on the basis of learned-by-rote
> >>>> dogmatic rules thus haven't the slightest clue whether or not these
> >>>> rules are consistent. When I point out that these rules are
> >>>> inconsistent
> >>>> you say that I am wrong because the rules do not say that they are
> >>>> inconsistent.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> And by that statement you are ADMITTING that you aren't using the a
> >>> actual definitions of the field, and thus your statments don't have
> >>> application to the field.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You are merely asserting learned-by-rote that is anchored in ignorance
> >> of the mandatory philosophical underpinnings.
> >
> > Nope, you are conflating your never-learned-because-of-ignorance for truth.
> >
> > You have proved this ignorance.
> >
> >>
> >> I am established the foundation of correct reasoning that every logical
> >> system must conform to otherwise it is incorrect.
> >>
> >
> > And admitting you don't understand the existing systems, so LYING about
> > your reasoning being applicable.
> >
> Because my reasoning is categorical it applies to the infinite set of
> all analytic truth. Every expression of language that cannot possibly be
> proven or refuted is not a truth bearer. This include every logical
> system that currently exists or all those that could be defined in the
> future.
Because your reasoning is categorical; and because you don't understand category theory - you don't understand that all categories have an opposite.

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/opposite+category

You don't understand duality: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/duality

On Monday, 19 December 2022 at 04:54:13 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 12/18/22 8:44 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 15:59:40 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On 12/17/22 3:30 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 02:16:51 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On 12/16/22 11:44 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 15:06:48 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Then your system can't do logic.
> >>>>> What's your classification rule for "doing" vs "not doing" logic?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You don't understand that the Principle of Explosion isn't an INPUT to a
> >>>>>> logic system, but something demonstratable from the basic fabric of a
> >>>>>> logic system.
> >>>>> The principle of explosion is not demonstrable in para-consistent logic, so you clearly thing that para-consistent logic is not logic.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Weird. It has "logic" in its name.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> You demostrate that you logic systm is worthless by the ilogic it generates.
> >>>>> Look. I have no idea what your objective measure for "worth" is, but in so far as logic systems have semantic properties some explode due to inconsistencies and some don't.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps some people find worth in logic systems which don't explode? Peculiar idea, I know!
> >>>> But since yours DO, it doesn't matter.
> >>> They don't. By design.
> >> No, yours DO explode, but you are apparentlly too stupid to see it.
> > You are too stupid to see that they don't.
> >
> >> All you are doing is adding more explosive power by adding the
> >> INCONSISTANT "rule" that they can't.
> >
> > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/
> >
> > "Paraconsistent logic challenges this standard view. A logical consequence relation is said to be paraconsistent if it is not explosive. Thus, if a consequence relation is paraconsistent, then even in circumstances where the available information is inconsistent, the consequence relation does not explode into triviality. Thus, paraconsistent logic accommodates inconsistency in a controlled way that treats inconsistent information as potentially informative."
> >
> > Particular applications include automated reasoning and AI.
> >
> > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/#ArtiInte
> SO, do these theoretical paraconsistent logic systems have the power to
> actually define the Natural Number system with all their know properties?
I have no idea what you are asking.

"Does system X have the power to define the Natural Number system with all their known properties?" is a yes/no question - a decision problem.
Encode the search on a Turing machine.

> But do they have the needed properties to do the operations desired by
> the theoretical mathematitian?
What operations are desired by the Theoretical mathematician? The desired operations directly determine the representation (data type) of the objects of interest!

Unless you tell me what it is that you want to compute about an object I can represent it however the fuck I want.
If you don't want to perform any operations on the natural numbers then you can even represent it as the unit-type - it doesn't really matter how you represent/encode it if you aren't going to DO anything with the data.

This is the essence of the Expression problems. Static data types (such as The Natural Numbers). You can either extend the operations on a given representation; or you can extend the representation given a fixed set of operations, but you can't always do both.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expression_problem

On 12/19/22 1:48 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Monday, 19 December 2022 at 04:54:13 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 12/18/22 8:44 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 15:59:40 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On 12/17/22 3:30 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 02:16:51 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/16/22 11:44 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 15:06:48 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Then your system can't do logic.
>>>>>>> What's your classification rule for "doing" vs "not doing" logic?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't understand that the Principle of Explosion isn't an INPUT to a
>>>>>>>> logic system, but something demonstratable from the basic fabric of a
>>>>>>>> logic system.
>>>>>>> The principle of explosion is not demonstrable in para-consistent logic, so you clearly thing that para-consistent logic is not logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Weird. It has "logic" in its name.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You demostrate that you logic systm is worthless by the ilogic it generates.
>>>>>>> Look. I have no idea what your objective measure for "worth" is, but in so far as logic systems have semantic properties some explode due to inconsistencies and some don't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps some people find worth in logic systems which don't explode? Peculiar idea, I know!
>>>>>> But since yours DO, it doesn't matter.
>>>>> They don't. By design.
>>>> No, yours DO explode, but you are apparentlly too stupid to see it.
>>> You are too stupid to see that they don't.
>>>
>>>> All you are doing is adding more explosive power by adding the
>>>> INCONSISTANT "rule" that they can't.
>>>
>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/
>>>
>>> "Paraconsistent logic challenges this standard view. A logical consequence relation is said to be paraconsistent if it is not explosive. Thus, if a consequence relation is paraconsistent, then even in circumstances where the available information is inconsistent, the consequence relation does not explode into triviality. Thus, paraconsistent logic accommodates inconsistency in a controlled way that treats inconsistent information as potentially informative."
>>>
>>> Particular applications include automated reasoning and AI.
>>>
>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/#ArtiInte
>> SO, do these theoretical paraconsistent logic systems have the power to
>> actually define the Natural Number system with all their know properties?
> I have no idea what you are asking.

Yes, clearly, because you don't understand that actual theory of logic.

>
> "Does system X have the power to define the Natural Number system with all their known properties?" is a yes/no question - a decision problem.
> Encode the search on a Turing machine.

Does you system even support Turing Machines, that is the question. You
are saying you can do your logic in this paraconsistent system, can that
system actually DEFINE something like a Turing Machine. There is a LOT
of Theoretical basis that needs to be established before you can use them.

Which means that until you do, you can't use them to answer the question.

>
>> But do they have the needed properties to do the operations desired by
>> the theoretical mathematitian?
> What operations are desired by the Theoretical mathematician? The desired operations directly determine the representation (data type) of the objects of interest!
>
> Unless you tell me what it is that you want to compute about an object I can represent it however the fuck I want.
> If you don't want to perform any operations on the natural numbers then you can even represent it as the unit-type - it doesn't really matter how you represent/encode it if you aren't going to DO anything with the data.
>
> This is the essence of the Expression problems. Static data types (such as The Natural Numbers). You can either extend the operations on a given representation; or you can extend the representation given a fixed set of operations, but you can't always do both.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expression_problem
>

And that is YOUR problem. As I have stated, we already HAVE defined a
large number of properties that are true for the Natural numbers in
classical logic.

YOU claim you can use another logic system as a complete replacement.

YOU therefore need to show that you can do it.

My question, can you system replicate the FULL Natural Number system?

On Monday, 19 December 2022 at 15:40:47 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 12/19/22 1:48 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Monday, 19 December 2022 at 04:54:13 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On 12/18/22 8:44 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 15:59:40 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On 12/17/22 3:30 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 02:16:51 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/16/22 11:44 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 15:06:48 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Then your system can't do logic.
> >>>>>>> What's your classification rule for "doing" vs "not doing" logic?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You don't understand that the Principle of Explosion isn't an INPUT to a
> >>>>>>>> logic system, but something demonstratable from the basic fabric of a
> >>>>>>>> logic system.
> >>>>>>> The principle of explosion is not demonstrable in para-consistent logic, so you clearly thing that para-consistent logic is not logic.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Weird. It has "logic" in its name.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You demostrate that you logic systm is worthless by the ilogic it generates.
> >>>>>>> Look. I have no idea what your objective measure for "worth" is, but in so far as logic systems have semantic properties some explode due to inconsistencies and some don't.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Perhaps some people find worth in logic systems which don't explode? Peculiar idea, I know!
> >>>>>> But since yours DO, it doesn't matter.
> >>>>> They don't. By design.
> >>>> No, yours DO explode, but you are apparentlly too stupid to see it.
> >>> You are too stupid to see that they don't.
> >>>
> >>>> All you are doing is adding more explosive power by adding the
> >>>> INCONSISTANT "rule" that they can't.
> >>>
> >>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/
> >>>
> >>> "Paraconsistent logic challenges this standard view. A logical consequence relation is said to be paraconsistent if it is not explosive. Thus, if a consequence relation is paraconsistent, then even in circumstances where the available information is inconsistent, the consequence relation does not explode into triviality. Thus, paraconsistent logic accommodates inconsistency in a controlled way that treats inconsistent information as potentially informative."
> >>>
> >>> Particular applications include automated reasoning and AI.
> >>>
> >>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/#ArtiInte
> >> SO, do these theoretical paraconsistent logic systems have the power to
> >> actually define the Natural Number system with all their know properties?
> > I have no idea what you are asking.
> Yes, clearly, because you don't understand that actual theory of logic.
Idiot. What's your objective measure for "understanding" a theory other than your ability to use it?

Do you understand a chair?

> > "Does system X have the power to define the Natural Number system with all their known properties?" is a yes/no question - a decision problem.
> > Encode the search on a Turing machine.
> Does you system even support Turing Machines, that is the question.
Idiot. Do you even understand that every Turing complete language is inconsistent.

In order to obtain consistency restrictions must be imposed upon Turing completeness. Meaning you have to restrict the expressive power of the system.

So obviously you can define the Natural Numbers in ANY inconsistent system. Inconsistent and para-consistent systems are more expressive than consistent systems.

This is true by definition.

>You are saying you can do your logic in this paraconsistent system, can that
> system actually DEFINE something like a Turing Machine.
Idiot. You can define the rules of a para-consistent logic ON a Turing Machine.

> Which means that until you do, you can't use them to answer the question.
Idiot. Do you actually understand what a query language is?

You don't have to answer the question. You just have to define the query and let the Turing Machine search for the answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Query_language

> And that is YOUR problem. As I have stated, we already HAVE defined a
> large number of properties that are true for the Natural numbers in
> classical logic.
Idiot. The Numbers don't exist UNTIL you define them. The properties, on the other hand - those exist with or without numbers.

You want monotonicity? Associativity? Commutativity? Distributivity?

You can get those properties with; or without numbers.

> My question, can you system replicate the FULL Natural Number system?
Idiot. Which properties of the Natural Number system are you interested in?

On 12/18/2022 11:08 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Sunday, 18 December 2022 at 17:20:58 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/17/2022 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/17/22 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/16/22 2:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/15/2022 10:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, because you are defining it in a way that you are requiring
>>>>>>> Mathematics to be based on it, but make it so that it can't be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are showing your stupidity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like I said you only know these things on the basis of learned-by-rote
>>>>>> dogmatic rules thus haven't the slightest clue whether or not these
>>>>>> rules are consistent. When I point out that these rules are
>>>>>> inconsistent
>>>>>> you say that I am wrong because the rules do not say that they are
>>>>>> inconsistent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And by that statement you are ADMITTING that you aren't using the a
>>>>> actual definitions of the field, and thus your statments don't have
>>>>> application to the field.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are merely asserting learned-by-rote that is anchored in ignorance
>>>> of the mandatory philosophical underpinnings.
>>>
>>> Nope, you are conflating your never-learned-because-of-ignorance for truth.
>>>
>>> You have proved this ignorance.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am established the foundation of correct reasoning that every logical
>>>> system must conform to otherwise it is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And admitting you don't understand the existing systems, so LYING about
>>> your reasoning being applicable.
>>>
>> Because my reasoning is categorical it applies to the infinite set of
>> all analytic truth. Every expression of language that cannot possibly be
>> proven or refuted is not a truth bearer. This include every logical
>> system that currently exists or all those that could be defined in the
>> future.
> Because your reasoning is categorical; and because you don't understand category theory - you don't understand that all categories have an opposite.
>
> https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/opposite+category
>

If every expression of language of analytical truth is only true on the
basis of its semantic connections to other elements of this set then
expressions of language that are true and unprovable cannot possibly exist.

> You don't understand duality: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/duality

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/19/22 10:33 AM, olcott wrote:

> If every expression of language of analytical truth is only true on the
> basis of its semantic connections to other elements of this set then
> expressions of language that are true and unprovable cannot possibly exist.
>

WHy do you say that?

As I have said, Truth can exist from an INFINITE series of semantic
connections, while proof requires a FINITE series of steps.

All you are showing is that your mind doesn't comprehend the concepts of
the infinite.

On Monday, 19 December 2022 at 17:33:54 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> If every expression of language of analytical truth is only true on the
> basis of its semantic connections to other elements of this set then
> expressions of language that are true and unprovable cannot possibly exist.

I reject your premises and your conclusion. For no reason whatsoever.

On 12/19/2022 10:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/19/22 10:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>
>> If every expression of language of analytical truth is only true on
>> the basis of its semantic connections to other elements of this set
>> then expressions of language that are true and unprovable cannot
>> possibly exist.
>>
>
> WHy do you say that?
>
> As I have said, Truth can exist from an INFINITE series of semantic
> connections, while proof requires a FINITE series of steps.
>
> All you are showing is that your mind doesn't comprehend the concepts of
> the infinite.

Expressions of language are:
(1) True
(2) False
(3) Not truth bearers,
excluding all self contradictory expressions such as this:

G ↔ ((F ⊬ G) ∧ (F ⊬ ¬G))
G is true if and only if G is unprovable and irrefutable in F
∃G ∈ F (G ↔ ((F ⊬ G) ∧ (F ⊬ ¬G))) is simply false

based on this foundational theorem
∀φ ∈ T ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊢ ¬φ))

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/19/2022 11:11 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Monday, 19 December 2022 at 17:33:54 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> If every expression of language of analytical truth is only true on the
>> basis of its semantic connections to other elements of this set then
>> expressions of language that are true and unprovable cannot possibly exist.
>
> I reject your premises and your conclusion. For no reason whatsoever.

Hence prove that you are only here to play head games and have no
interest what-so-ever in any mutually honest dialogue.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Monday, 19 December 2022 at 19:12:47 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> Expressions of language are:
> (1) True
> (2) False
> (3) Not truth bearers,

So the expression "The 11th planet in the Solar system has 3 moons" is 1, 2 or 3?

On Monday, 19 December 2022 at 19:14:45 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> On 12/19/2022 11:11 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Monday, 19 December 2022 at 17:33:54 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >> If every expression of language of analytical truth is only true on the
> >> basis of its semantic connections to other elements of this set then
> >> expressions of language that are true and unprovable cannot possibly exist.
> >
> > I reject your premises and your conclusion. For no reason whatsoever.
> Hence prove that you are only here to play head games and have no
> interest what-so-ever in any mutually honest dialogue.

Hence you prove that you are projecting.

On 12/19/22 12:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/19/2022 10:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/19/22 10:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> If every expression of language of analytical truth is only true on
>>> the basis of its semantic connections to other elements of this set
>>> then expressions of language that are true and unprovable cannot
>>> possibly exist.
>>>
>>
>> WHy do you say that?
>>
>> As I have said, Truth can exist from an INFINITE series of semantic
>> connections, while proof requires a FINITE series of steps.
>>
>> All you are showing is that your mind doesn't comprehend the concepts
>> of the infinite.
>
> Expressions of language are:
> (1) True
> (2) False
> (3) Not truth bearers,
> excluding all self contradictory expressions such as this:

But actual self contradictory expressions just fall into your case (3),
so aren't actually an excepting

>
> G ↔ ((F ⊬ G) ∧ (F ⊬ ¬G))

Which isn't G in F.

G in F is just a proof that we can not prove some specific statement x
is F. In simpler form: G: F ⊬ x

Since G is a statement about some statement being provable, it is a
Truth Bearer, and thus True or False with an excluded middle.

If G is true, then x must be unprovable (perhaps becuase it is false, or
not a truth bearer).

If G is false, then x must be provable, and thus must also be true.

Only in the meta do we see that x is, in fact, G, so if G was false, our
conclusion that x must be true becomes a contradiction.

Thus if our system is to be consistent, G must be true, and thus x
(since it turns out to be G) must also be True, and thus we have that
for a logic system able to express this proof (which just requires
properties of the Natural Numbers and basic logic) we have shown that it
must either be Incomplete (having True Statements which can not be
proven) or is Inconsistent.

> G is true if and only if G is unprovable and irrefutable in F
> ∃G ∈ F (G ↔ ((F ⊬ G) ∧ (F ⊬ ¬G))) is simply false
>
> based on this foundational theorem
> ∀φ ∈ T ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊢ ¬φ))
>

Where do you get that from? That seems more like you false axiom.

Is should be more like:

∀φ ∈ T ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊬ φ))

As either a proof of φ will or will not exist in T.

Thus, from Godel, any system built with your "axiom" must be either:

(1) Inconsistent, or
(2) Not powerful enough to express the properties of the Natural Numbers.

On 12/19/2022 11:22 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Monday, 19 December 2022 at 19:12:47 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> Expressions of language are:
>> (1) True
>> (2) False
>> (3) Not truth bearers,
>
> So the expression "The 11th planet in the Solar system has 3 moons" is 1, 2 or 3?

(2)

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/19/2022 11:51 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Monday, 19 December 2022 at 19:14:45 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/19/2022 11:11 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Monday, 19 December 2022 at 17:33:54 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>> If every expression of language of analytical truth is only true on the
>>>> basis of its semantic connections to other elements of this set then
>>>> expressions of language that are true and unprovable cannot possibly exist.
>>>
>>> I reject your premises and your conclusion. For no reason whatsoever.
>> Hence prove that you are only here to play head games and have no
>> interest what-so-ever in any mutually honest dialogue.
>
> Hence you prove that you are projecting.

Not when you say that you are rejecting what I say
"For no reason whatsoever"

Straighten up or be ignored henceforth.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Monday, 19 December 2022 at 20:57:39 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> On 12/19/2022 11:22 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Monday, 19 December 2022 at 19:12:47 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >> Expressions of language are:
> >> (1) True
> >> (2) False
> >> (3) Not truth bearers,
> >
> > So the expression "The 11th planet in the Solar system has 3 moons" is 1, 2 or 3?
> (2)
How do you know?

On Monday, 19 December 2022 at 20:59:31 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> On 12/19/2022 11:51 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Monday, 19 December 2022 at 19:14:45 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >> On 12/19/2022 11:11 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 19 December 2022 at 17:33:54 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >>>> If every expression of language of analytical truth is only true on the
> >>>> basis of its semantic connections to other elements of this set then
> >>>> expressions of language that are true and unprovable cannot possibly exist.
> >>>
> >>> I reject your premises and your conclusion. For no reason whatsoever.
> >> Hence prove that you are only here to play head games and have no
> >> interest what-so-ever in any mutually honest dialogue.
> >
> > Hence you prove that you are projecting.
> Not when you say that you are rejecting what I say
> "For no reason whatsoever"
>
> Straighten up or be ignored henceforth.
I don't need a reason to reject what you are saying. I can't get any more honest than that.

Perhaps a dishonest person such as yourself can't understand that?