On 8/10/2022 9:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/10/22 9:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/10/2022 8:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/10/22 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/2022 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/10/22 1:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/10/2022 10:00 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 10 August 2022 at 02:02:13 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>   ...
>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> bool LiarPardox = (LiarParadox == true);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, that is the good part of using C/C++ language to express idea.
>>>>>>> "This statement is true" is also an 'undefined' statement in this
>>>>>>> regard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *What is the proper definition of a truth bearer*?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Expressions of language that can be resolved to a truth value are
>>>>>> [truth bearers]. This includes expressions of language that
>>>>>> currently have unknown truth values.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Expressions of language that cannot possibly be resolved to a
>>>>>> truth value because their type or structure are not [truth bearers].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Expressions of language that contradict their own truth value:
>>>>>> "This sentence is not true." cannot possibly be resolved to a
>>>>>> truth value are not [truth bearers].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are only two ways that an expression of language can be
>>>>>> resolved to a truth value:
>>>>>> (1) An expression of language is assigned a truth value such as
>>>>>> "cats are animals" is defined to be true.
>>>>>> (2) Truth preserving operations are applied to expressions of
>>>>>> language that are known to be true. {cats are animals} and
>>>>>> {animals are living things} therefore {cats are living things}.
>>>>>> Copyright 2021 PL Olcott
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or, the Truth of the statement can be EMPIRICALLY demonstrated.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes you are correct. I was only referring to analytic rather than
>>>> synthetic truth.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>>>>
>>>
>>> But then you keep using the wrong term. And use wrong examples.
>>>
>>> "Cats are Animals" is NOT actually an Analytic Truth,
>> WRONG
>>
>> “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
>> historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
>> meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
>> knowing those meanings.
>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>>
>
> But the definition of "Pediatrician" is that it is a TYPE of doctor that
> ....
>
> It specifically defines the label as a subclass.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Suborder: Feliformia
Family: Felidae
Subfamily: Felinae
Genus: Felis
Species: F. catus[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat

>
> "Cat" is a different sort of thing, while we conventionaally might use a
> "animal" reference in describing it, that is because the sort of thing
> we call a "Cat" happens to emperically be an animal.
>
> "Cats" are a classification of a set of entities with certain
> properties. It just so happens to turn out that one of them is that they
> also fall within the classification we call animals.
>
> This shows the "flaw" of trying to use too sharp of a knife to divide
> the types of truth from each other.
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 8/10/22 10:27 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 02:44:14 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 8/10/22 1:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/10/2022 10:00 AM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 10 August 2022 at 02:02:13 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>> bool LiarPardox = (LiarParadox == true);
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that is the good part of using C/C++ language to express idea.
>>>> "This statement is true" is also an 'undefined' statement in this regard.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *What is the proper definition of a truth bearer*?
>>>
>>> Expressions of language that can be resolved to a truth value are [truth
>>> bearers]. This includes expressions of language that currently have
>>> unknown truth values.
>>>
>>> Expressions of language that cannot possibly be resolved to a truth
>>> value because their type or structure are not [truth bearers].
>>>
>>> Expressions of language that contradict their own truth value: "This
>>> sentence is not true." cannot possibly be resolved to a truth value are
>>> not [truth bearers].
>>>
>>> There are only two ways that an expression of language can be resolved
>>> to a truth value:
>>> (1) An expression of language is assigned a truth value such as "cats
>>> are animals" is defined to be true.
>>> (2) Truth preserving operations are applied to expressions of language
>>> that are known to be true. {cats are animals} and {animals are living
>>> things} therefore {cats are living things}. Copyright 2021 PL Olcott
>>>
>> Or, the Truth of the statement can be EMPIRICALLY demonstrated.
>
>> The statement "The Earth is Round" is True, not because we have assigned
>> the "Round Property" to the name "Earth", or because we have somehow
>> manipulated know true statements to prove that the Earth must be round,
>> but because by DIRECT OBSERVATION, we see that it meets the definition
>> we has assigned to "Round".
>
> The Earth meets your definition of “round”? Why? Earth is not round. We approximate it to be round, or oblate.
>
> But that is just what we say about it colloquially. It isn’t literally true.
>
>

I said "Round" which is an approximate shape, not Spherical.

Also note, that if you shrank the earth to the size of a normal "ball"
of some sort (a conventional one would be a billiard ball) its roundness
is comparable to many things we just take as "a sphere", but not a round
as "precision" spheres.

On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 04:51:21 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> And how does your language know which x to bind to which object?
I don't understand your question. The bindings and evaluations are explicit.

What's confusing you?

> It seems you have an inconsisten system.
Even if it were true - why should I care?

A design choice exists: a system can be consistent; or complete but not both.

Which one you choose depends on your use-case for the system.

> Since == is a comparison, and not a binding, nornally, two references to
> the same name in a given expression will be bound to the same object.
>
> Or, is you system just randomly changing the binding of a variable in
> the middle of operations on a whim?
What? I'll annotate it for you...

In [2]: x = object(). # bind x to object()

In [3]: x == x # evaluate x == x
Out[3]: True

In [4]: x = another_object() # now re-bind x to another object

In [5]: x == x # evaluate x == x
Out[5]: False

If that's confusing you I can use different variable names...

In [6]: x = object()

In [7]: y = another_object()

In [8]: x == x
Out[8]: True

In [9]: y == y
Out[9]: False

On 8/10/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/10/2022 9:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/10/22 9:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/10/2022 8:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/22 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/10/2022 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/10/22 1:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/10/2022 10:00 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 10 August 2022 at 02:02:13 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>   ...
>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>> bool LiarPardox = (LiarParadox == true);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, that is the good part of using C/C++ language to express idea.
>>>>>>>> "This statement is true" is also an 'undefined' statement in
>>>>>>>> this regard.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *What is the proper definition of a truth bearer*?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Expressions of language that can be resolved to a truth value are
>>>>>>> [truth bearers]. This includes expressions of language that
>>>>>>> currently have unknown truth values.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Expressions of language that cannot possibly be resolved to a
>>>>>>> truth value because their type or structure are not [truth bearers].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Expressions of language that contradict their own truth value:
>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true." cannot possibly be resolved to a
>>>>>>> truth value are not [truth bearers].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are only two ways that an expression of language can be
>>>>>>> resolved to a truth value:
>>>>>>> (1) An expression of language is assigned a truth value such as
>>>>>>> "cats are animals" is defined to be true.
>>>>>>> (2) Truth preserving operations are applied to expressions of
>>>>>>> language that are known to be true. {cats are animals} and
>>>>>>> {animals are living things} therefore {cats are living things}.
>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 PL Olcott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or, the Truth of the statement can be EMPIRICALLY demonstrated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes you are correct. I was only referring to analytic rather than
>>>>> synthetic truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But then you keep using the wrong term. And use wrong examples.
>>>>
>>>> "Cats are Animals" is NOT actually an Analytic Truth,
>>> WRONG
>>>
>>> “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
>>> historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of
>>> the meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely
>>> by knowing those meanings.
>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>>>
>>
>> But the definition of "Pediatrician" is that it is a TYPE of doctor
>> that ....
>>
>> It specifically defines the label as a subclass.
>
> Kingdom:   Animalia
> Phylum:       Chordata
> Class:       Mammalia
> Order:       Carnivora
> Suborder:  Feliformia
> Family:       Felidae
> Subfamily: Felinae
> Genus:       Felis
> Species: F. catus[1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat
>
>

But that hierarchy is EMPERICAL, not just analytically defined.

Vs, Pediatrician, which is a name for a specific specialization of
Doctor, and innately is a subclass.

Note, the Label Cat existed long before most of those levels of
Hierarchy were invented.

It should be pointed out that some species get reclassified as we
determine that the hierarcies we THOUGHT they belonged to were incorrect.

Analytical Definition, to truely be a pure analitical definition must
not be based on something that can turn out to be untrue.

>>
>> "Cat" is a different sort of thing, while we conventionaally might use
>> a "animal" reference in describing it, that is because the sort of
>> thing we call a "Cat" happens to emperically be an animal.
>>
>> "Cats" are a classification of a set of entities with certain
>> properties. It just so happens to turn out that one of them is that
>> they also fall within the classification we call animals.
>>
>> This shows the "flaw" of trying to use too sharp of a knife to divide
>> the types of truth from each other.
>>
>
>

On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 05:13:08 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> I said "Round" which is an approximate shape, not Spherical.
Well, on approximation the Earth is approximately (but not exactly) flat!

I made a coffee table yesterday and I didn't even have to take the curvature into account!

All approximations are good enough for some purpose.

> Also note, that if you shrank the earth to the size of a normal "ball"
> of some sort (a conventional one would be a billiard ball) its roundness
> is comparable to many things we just take as "a sphere", but not a round
> as "precision" spheres.

And if you expanded it to the size of the Universe or something?

You don't get to play the scale transformation game just one way.

On 8/10/2022 10:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/10/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/10/2022 9:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/10/22 9:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/2022 8:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/10/22 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/10/2022 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/10/22 1:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2022 10:00 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 10 August 2022 at 02:02:13 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>   ...
>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>> bool LiarPardox = (LiarParadox == true);
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, that is the good part of using C/C++ language to express
>>>>>>>>> idea.
>>>>>>>>> "This statement is true" is also an 'undefined' statement in
>>>>>>>>> this regard.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *What is the proper definition of a truth bearer*?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Expressions of language that can be resolved to a truth value
>>>>>>>> are [truth bearers]. This includes expressions of language that
>>>>>>>> currently have unknown truth values.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Expressions of language that cannot possibly be resolved to a
>>>>>>>> truth value because their type or structure are not [truth
>>>>>>>> bearers].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Expressions of language that contradict their own truth value:
>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true." cannot possibly be resolved to a
>>>>>>>> truth value are not [truth bearers].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are only two ways that an expression of language can be
>>>>>>>> resolved to a truth value:
>>>>>>>> (1) An expression of language is assigned a truth value such as
>>>>>>>> "cats are animals" is defined to be true.
>>>>>>>> (2) Truth preserving operations are applied to expressions of
>>>>>>>> language that are known to be true. {cats are animals} and
>>>>>>>> {animals are living things} therefore {cats are living things}.
>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 PL Olcott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or, the Truth of the statement can be EMPIRICALLY demonstrated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes you are correct. I was only referring to analytic rather than
>>>>>> synthetic truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But then you keep using the wrong term. And use wrong examples.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Cats are Animals" is NOT actually an Analytic Truth,
>>>> WRONG
>>>>
>>>> “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
>>>> historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of
>>>> the meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so
>>>> solely by knowing those meanings.
>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>>>>
>>>
>>> But the definition of "Pediatrician" is that it is a TYPE of doctor
>>> that ....
>>>
>>> It specifically defines the label as a subclass.
>>
>> Kingdom:   Animalia
>> Phylum:       Chordata
>> Class:       Mammalia
>> Order:       Carnivora
>> Suborder:  Feliformia
>> Family:       Felidae
>> Subfamily: Felinae
>> Genus:       Felis
>> Species: F. catus[1]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat
>>
>>
>
> But that hierarchy is EMPERICAL, not just analytically defined.
>
> Vs, Pediatrician, which is a name for a specific specialization of
> Doctor, and innately is a subclass.
>
> Note, the Label Cat existed long before most of those levels of
> Hierarchy were invented.
>
> It should be pointed out that some species get reclassified as we
> determine that the hierarcies we THOUGHT they belonged to were incorrect.
>
> Analytical Definition, to truely be a pure analitical definition must
> not be based on something that can turn out to be untrue.
>

An empirical definition requires sense data from the sense organs to
verify. That a {cat} is a {feline} is defined to be true, thus does not
depend on sense data from the sense organs.

>
>>>
>>> "Cat" is a different sort of thing, while we conventionaally might
>>> use a "animal" reference in describing it, that is because the sort
>>> of thing we call a "Cat" happens to emperically be an animal.
>>>
>>> "Cats" are a classification of a set of entities with certain
>>> properties. It just so happens to turn out that one of them is that
>>> they also fall within the classification we call animals.
>>>
>>> This shows the "flaw" of trying to use too sharp of a knife to divide
>>> the types of truth from each other.
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 6:28:55 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
> On 8/10/2022 8:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 8/10/22 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> >> On 8/10/2022 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>> On 8/10/22 1:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 8/10/2022 10:00 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 10 August 2022 at 02:02:13 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>> {
> >>>>>> bool LiarPardox = (LiarParadox == true);
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, that is the good part of using C/C++ language to express idea.
> >>>>> "This statement is true" is also an 'undefined' statement in this
> >>>>> regard.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> *What is the proper definition of a truth bearer*?
> >>>>
> >>>> Expressions of language that can be resolved to a truth value are
> >>>> [truth bearers]. This includes expressions of language that
> >>>> currently have unknown truth values.
> >>>>
> >>>> Expressions of language that cannot possibly be resolved to a truth
> >>>> value because their type or structure are not [truth bearers].
> >>>>
> >>>> Expressions of language that contradict their own truth value: "This
> >>>> sentence is not true." cannot possibly be resolved to a truth value
> >>>> are not [truth bearers].
> >>>>
> >>>> There are only two ways that an expression of language can be
> >>>> resolved to a truth value:
> >>>> (1) An expression of language is assigned a truth value such as
> >>>> "cats are animals" is defined to be true.
> >>>> (2) Truth preserving operations are applied to expressions of
> >>>> language that are known to be true. {cats are animals} and {animals
> >>>> are living things} therefore {cats are living things}. Copyright
> >>>> 2021 PL Olcott
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Or, the Truth of the statement can be EMPIRICALLY demonstrated.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes you are correct. I was only referring to analytic rather than
> >> synthetic truth.
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
> >>
> >
> > But then you keep using the wrong term. And use wrong examples.
> >
> > "Cats are Animals" is NOT actually an Analytic Truth,
> WRONG
>
> “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
> historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
> meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
> knowing those meanings.
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

If we define the meaning of a word as a set of attributes then we will
have the meaning of "pediatrician" to be a superset of "doctor". That
is "if A means some subset of B then a B is an A". Are there any other
analytic expressions?

On 8/10/22 11:17 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 04:51:21 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> And how does your language know which x to bind to which object?
> I don't understand your question. The bindings and evaluations are explicit.
>
> What's confusing you?
>
>> It seems you have an inconsisten system.
> Even if it were true - why should I care?
>
> A design choice exists: a system can be consistent; or complete but not both.
>
> Which one you choose depends on your use-case for the system.
>
>> Since == is a comparison, and not a binding, nornally, two references to
>> the same name in a given expression will be bound to the same object.
>>
>> Or, is you system just randomly changing the binding of a variable in
>> the middle of operations on a whim?
> What? I'll annotate it for you...
>
> In [2]: x = object(). # bind x to object()
>
> In [3]: x == x # evaluate x == x
> Out[3]: True
>
> In [4]: x = another_object() # now re-bind x to another object
>
> In [5]: x == x # evaluate x == x
> Out[5]: False

WHy? both x's refer to the same new object?

>
> If that's confusing you I can use different variable names...
>
> In [6]: x = object()
>
> In [7]: y = another_object()
>
> In [8]: x == x
> Out[8]: True
>
> In [9]: y == y
> Out[9]: False
>

so why does y not equal to y?

I thought you claim was every object was equal to itself.

You clearly aren't explaining what you mean by your notation, and thus
being intentionally deceptive, in other words, being a liar.

Note, I showed an EXPLICIT case that show that the assumptions that an
object is equal to itself, because the non-a-number value is defined
that way.

You are just working with some generic object, claiming that objects are
always equal to themselves, but then saying some other object isn't
equal to itself, so you have a contradiction in you logic, or an
intentional deception.

On 8/10/22 11:21 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 05:13:08 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I said "Round" which is an approximate shape, not Spherical.
> Well, on approximation the Earth is approximately (but not exactly) flat!
>
> I made a coffee table yesterday and I didn't even have to take the curvature into account!
>
> All approximations are good enough for some purpose.
>
>> Also note, that if you shrank the earth to the size of a normal "ball"
>> of some sort (a conventional one would be a billiard ball) its roundness
>> is comparable to many things we just take as "a sphere", but not a round
>> as "precision" spheres.
>
> And if you expanded it to the size of the Universe or something?
>
> You don't get to play the scale transformation game just one way.
>

It still is closer to a perfect sphere as a relative deviation (which is
how spherisity is measured) than many things we do consider to be a sphere.

On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 14:05:22 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> It still is closer to a perfect sphere as a relative deviation (which is
> how spherisity is measured) than many things we do consider to be a sphere.
Uhuh. And how do you measure "closeness" ?

You really want to have your cake and eat it too, don't you?

On the one hand you get to exercise your own judgment.
On the other hand you want strict adherence to defintiions.
And on a third hand you turn a blind eye when your own examples don't satisfy your own definitions.

It's a stupid game! The only winning move is to not play.

On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 14:01:24 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> so why does y not equal to y?
What a stupid question?

Why does x = x? Because it's an axiom!
Why does y != y? Because it's an axiom!

To accept or reject axioms is subject to individual preference.

> I thought you claim was every object was equal to itself.
I didn't make any such claim, but lets pretend that I did.

Every object is equal to itself.
y is not equal to itself => y is not an object

Can you logic or...?

> You clearly aren't explaining what you mean by your notation, and thus
> being intentionally deceptive, in other words, being a liar.
Bullshit.

What do you mean by x=x in the standard notation? You mean "True"
That is the value which you have assigned to the expression!

What do I mean by y=y in my notation? I mean "False".
That is the value which I have assigned to the expression.

> Note, I showed an EXPLICIT case that show that the assumptions that an
> object is equal to itself, because the non-a-number value is defined
> that way.
and y != y is also defined that way.

What's your point?

> You are just working with some generic object, claiming that objects are
> always equal to themselves
I have never made that claim.

I have stated (over and over) that x=x ↔ True is an arbitrary axiom.
And I am pointing that y=y ↔ False is just an arbitrary an axiom.

But the point is that you can CHOOSE the truth-value of your axiom!

> but then saying some other object isn't
> equal to itself, so you have a contradiction in you logic
Good thing I have never said anything like that!

What I am saying is that some objects may be equal to themselves; and some object may not be equal to themselves.

And I can derrive some logic/computation out of that.

I can also say things like...

All objects are the same. Except for their differences.
All objects are different. Except for their similarities.

And I can derrive some logic/computation out of that too.

On 8/11/22 8:22 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 14:01:24 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> so why does y not equal to y?
> What a stupid question?
>
> Why does x = x? Because it's an axiom!
> Why does y != y? Because it's an axiom!

But axioms are supposed to be evident.

Just saying "because' means that your system has no logical reasoning
behind it.

>
> To accept or reject axioms is subject to individual preference.

Not really, unless you are creating private systems/fields of study.

>
>> I thought you claim was every object was equal to itself.
> I didn't make any such claim, but lets pretend that I did.
>
> Every object is equal to itself.
> y is not equal to itself => y is not an object
>
> Can you logic or...?

But you said that the things you are manipulating are objects.

>
>> You clearly aren't explaining what you mean by your notation, and thus
>> being intentionally deceptive, in other words, being a liar.
> Bullshit.
>
> What do you mean by x=x in the standard notation? You mean "True"
> That is the value which you have assigned to the expression!
>
> What do I mean by y=y in my notation? I mean "False".
> That is the value which I have assigned to the expression.

So, you are defining a system based on non-sense and illogic.

Sounds about right for you.

>
>> Note, I showed an EXPLICIT case that show that the assumptions that an
>> object is equal to itself, because the non-a-number value is defined
>> that way.
> and y != y is also defined that way.
>
> What's your point?
>
>> You are just working with some generic object, claiming that objects are
>> always equal to themselves
> I have never made that claim.
>
> I have stated (over and over) that x=x ↔ True is an arbitrary axiom.
> And I am pointing that y=y ↔ False is just an arbitrary an axiom.
>
> But the point is that you can CHOOSE the truth-value of your axiom!
>
>> but then saying some other object isn't
>> equal to itself, so you have a contradiction in you logic
> Good thing I have never said anything like that!
>
> What I am saying is that some objects may be equal to themselves; and some object may not be equal to themselves.
>
> And I can derrive some logic/computation out of that.
>
> I can also say things like...
>
> All objects are the same. Except for their differences.
> All objects are different. Except for their similarities.
>
> And I can derrive some logic/computation out of that too.
>
>
>
>

On 8/10/22 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/10/2022 10:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/10/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/10/2022 9:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/22 9:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/10/2022 8:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/10/22 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/10/2022 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/10/22 1:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2022 10:00 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 10 August 2022 at 02:02:13 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>   ...
>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>> bool LiarPardox = (LiarParadox == true);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that is the good part of using C/C++ language to express
>>>>>>>>>> idea.
>>>>>>>>>> "This statement is true" is also an 'undefined' statement in
>>>>>>>>>> this regard.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *What is the proper definition of a truth bearer*?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Expressions of language that can be resolved to a truth value
>>>>>>>>> are [truth bearers]. This includes expressions of language that
>>>>>>>>> currently have unknown truth values.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Expressions of language that cannot possibly be resolved to a
>>>>>>>>> truth value because their type or structure are not [truth
>>>>>>>>> bearers].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Expressions of language that contradict their own truth value:
>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true." cannot possibly be resolved to a
>>>>>>>>> truth value are not [truth bearers].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are only two ways that an expression of language can be
>>>>>>>>> resolved to a truth value:
>>>>>>>>> (1) An expression of language is assigned a truth value such as
>>>>>>>>> "cats are animals" is defined to be true.
>>>>>>>>> (2) Truth preserving operations are applied to expressions of
>>>>>>>>> language that are known to be true. {cats are animals} and
>>>>>>>>> {animals are living things} therefore {cats are living things}.
>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 PL Olcott
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or, the Truth of the statement can be EMPIRICALLY demonstrated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes you are correct. I was only referring to analytic rather than
>>>>>>> synthetic truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But then you keep using the wrong term. And use wrong examples.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Cats are Animals" is NOT actually an Analytic Truth,
>>>>> WRONG
>>>>>
>>>>> “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
>>>>> historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of
>>>>> the meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so
>>>>> solely by knowing those meanings.
>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the definition of "Pediatrician" is that it is a TYPE of doctor
>>>> that ....
>>>>
>>>> It specifically defines the label as a subclass.
>>>
>>> Kingdom:   Animalia
>>> Phylum:       Chordata
>>> Class:       Mammalia
>>> Order:       Carnivora
>>> Suborder:  Feliformia
>>> Family:       Felidae
>>> Subfamily: Felinae
>>> Genus:       Felis
>>> Species: F. catus[1]
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But that hierarchy is EMPERICAL, not just analytically defined.
>>
>> Vs, Pediatrician, which is a name for a specific specialization of
>> Doctor, and innately is a subclass.
>>
>> Note, the Label Cat existed long before most of those levels of
>> Hierarchy were invented.
>>
>> It should be pointed out that some species get reclassified as we
>> determine that the hierarcies we THOUGHT they belonged to were incorrect.
>>
>> Analytical Definition, to truely be a pure analitical definition must
>> not be based on something that can turn out to be untrue.
>>
>
> An empirical definition requires sense data from the sense organs to
> verify. That a {cat} is a {feline} is defined to be true, thus does not
> depend on sense data from the sense organs.
>

It may require sense data to VERIFY, but not to have an actual truth value.

There is an empirical value for the number of Humans that were on the
Earth at a precise point in time.

That number is exact, and the asserting that the value is that value
would be true, and that that value is any other value is false.

THe fact that no one actually sensed that value is irrelvent.

>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> "Cat" is a different sort of thing, while we conventionaally might
>>>> use a "animal" reference in describing it, that is because the sort
>>>> of thing we call a "Cat" happens to emperically be an animal.
>>>>
>>>> "Cats" are a classification of a set of entities with certain
>>>> properties. It just so happens to turn out that one of them is that
>>>> they also fall within the classification we call animals.
>>>>
>>>> This shows the "flaw" of trying to use too sharp of a knife to
>>>> divide the types of truth from each other.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

On 8/11/22 8:13 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 14:05:22 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> It still is closer to a perfect sphere as a relative deviation (which is
>> how spherisity is measured) than many things we do consider to be a sphere.
> Uhuh. And how do you measure "closeness" ?
>
> You really want to have your cake and eat it too, don't you?
>
> On the one hand you get to exercise your own judgment.
> On the other hand you want strict adherence to defintiions.
> And on a third hand you turn a blind eye when your own examples don't satisfy your own definitions.
>
> It's a stupid game! The only winning move is to not play.
>
>
>

So you don't understand non-binary properties?

Things like "Roundness" have a scale.

A pyramid is almost completely NOT "Round".

A regular dodecahedron is sort of round, but also has noticable deviations.

An "American" football has some aspects of roundness, but is highly
distored in other aspects.

A pancake if often somewhat round on one plane.

A soccor ball is fairly round, with some definite deviations.

The Earth is highly round.

A machined ball bearing is even rounder.

Yes, language can get messy, The Earth is "Round" because it match the
gradient propert of Roundness to a high enough degree that it is
considered to have that property.

Arguing over that sort of fine detail shows you aren't actually
interested in an honest discussion.

On Friday, 12 August 2022 at 05:10:24 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 8/11/22 8:22 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 14:01:24 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> so why does y not equal to y?
> > What a stupid question?
> >
> > Why does x = x? Because it's an axiom!
> > Why does y != y? Because it's an axiom!
> But axioms are supposed to be evident.
There is great irony in the fact that just a few days ago you were accusing me of being "unable" to think abstractly without concretizing everything.

Now look at you! Grasphing for concrete/evident axioms.

Mathematics is just made up rules! It's a bycicle for your mind.

> Just saying "because' means that your system has no logical reasoning
> behind it.
I don't know in what way I need to (if it's even possible) to explain to you that Logic, Computation and Mathematics are one and the same thing looked at from different perspectives.

Rules. Made up rules.

> Not really, unless you are creating private systems/fields of study.
Every mainstream field of study was once a "private system". And then it wasn't.

> But you said that the things you are manipulating are objects.
Yes. And? I do manipulate objects. I also manipulate non-objects.

> So, you are defining a system based on non-sense and illogic.
Holy shit, cowboy! Which part of this is eluding you?!?

(x == x) ⇔ True
(y == y) ⇔ False

Do you even know what the logical symbol ⇔ means ?!?

> Sounds about right for you.
An uncharitable ignoramus. Sounds about right for you.

On Friday, 12 August 2022 at 05:22:19 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> So you don't understand non-binary properties?
> Things like "Roundness" have a scale.
So you don't actually understand scale invariance?

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

> A pyramid is almost completely NOT "Round".
Precisely! No matter the scale (small or large) - a pyramid is never round.

> A regular dodecahedron is sort of round, but also has noticable deviations.
Lol. Yes. That is the lie they told you in calculus. That you can fill a circle with a many-sided polygons and then it magically becomes a circle.

> An "American" football has some aspects of roundness, but is highly
> distored in other aspects.
It sure has curvature. I have no idea what "roundness" is.

> A ancake if often somewhat round on one plane.
> A soccor ball is fairly round, with some definite deviations.
> The Earth is highly round.
> A machined ball bearing is even rounder.

Approximately speaking a triangle is also round!
It fills up a circle exactly like a dodecagon doesn't fill up a circle either.

> Yes, language can get messy, The Earth is "Round" because it match the
> gradient propert of Roundness to a high enough degree that it is
> considered to have that property.
Oooh! "High enough degree"

> Arguing over that sort of fine detail shows you aren't actually
> interested in an honest discussion.
So you have decided to climb upon a (dead) moral high horse, now that you've run out of precision?

On 8/12/22 4:55 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 12 August 2022 at 05:10:24 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 8/11/22 8:22 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 14:01:24 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> so why does y not equal to y?
>>> What a stupid question?
>>>
>>> Why does x = x? Because it's an axiom!
>>> Why does y != y? Because it's an axiom!
>> But axioms are supposed to be evident.
> There is great irony in the fact that just a few days ago you were accusing me of being "unable" to think abstractly without concretizing everything.
>
> Now look at you! Grasphing for concrete/evident axioms.
>
> Mathematics is just made up rules! It's a bycicle for your mind.
>
>> Just saying "because' means that your system has no logical reasoning
>> behind it.
> I don't know in what way I need to (if it's even possible) to explain to you that Logic, Computation and Mathematics are one and the same thing looked at from different perspectives.
>
> Rules. Made up rules.
>
>> Not really, unless you are creating private systems/fields of study.
> Every mainstream field of study was once a "private system". And then it wasn't.
>
>> But you said that the things you are manipulating are objects.
> Yes. And? I do manipulate objects. I also manipulate non-objects.
>
>> So, you are defining a system based on non-sense and illogic.
> Holy shit, cowboy! Which part of this is eluding you?!?
>
> (x == x) ⇔ True
> (y == y) ⇔ False
>
> Do you even know what the logical symbol ⇔ means ?!?

Right, and without further explanation of the apparent insanity, your
system is shown to be useless.

>
>> Sounds about right for you.
> An uncharitable ignoramus. Sounds about right for you.
>
>
>

And like your system, so is most of what you say.

Since you won't define your system, we can take ANYTHING you mean to
mean whatever we want to, after all, you have declared that people don't
need to be mind-readers, so we don't need to follow your intent in your
statments, and anything that hasn't been explicitly defined, can be
assuemd to be whatever we want it to be.

Done to the meaning of the words you use, maybe you actually mean by
"define" what most of us mean "guess". After all, you reject the concept
that conventions hold.

On Friday, 12 August 2022 at 23:48:38 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> Right, and without further explanation of the apparent insanity, your
> system is shown to be useless.
Oh. So now you started caring about pragmatics?

I thought you can just do abstraction without having to concretize everything.

> Since you won't define your system, we can take ANYTHING you mean to
> mean whatever we want to, after all, you have declared that people don't
> need to be mind-readers, so we don't need to follow your intent in your
> statments, and anything that hasn't been explicitly defined, can be
> assuemd to be whatever we want it to be.
You can do that. But at least be honest why you are doing it.

It's because you are grumpy old fart who doesn't like to be challenged by somebody half his age.

You are just being dismissive and far too lazy to even open the Wikipedia page on *R.

> Done to the meaning of the words you use, maybe you actually mean by
> "define" what most of us mean "guess". After all, you reject the concept
> that conventions hold.
Yes - I reject conventions. But YOU don't. You LOVE conventions.

So what's the conventional definition of "definition" ?
What's the conventional meaning of "meaning"?

On 8/12/22 6:07 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 12 August 2022 at 23:48:38 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Right, and without further explanation of the apparent insanity, your
>> system is shown to be useless.
> Oh. So now you started caring about pragmatics?
>
> I thought you can just do abstraction without having to concretize everything.
>
>> Since you won't define your system, we can take ANYTHING you mean to
>> mean whatever we want to, after all, you have declared that people don't
>> need to be mind-readers, so we don't need to follow your intent in your
>> statments, and anything that hasn't been explicitly defined, can be
>> assuemd to be whatever we want it to be.
> You can do that. But at least be honest why you are doing it.
>
> It's because you are grumpy old fart who doesn't like to be challenged by somebody half his age.
>
> You are just being dismissive and far too lazy to even open the Wikipedia page on *R.
>
>> Done to the meaning of the words you use, maybe you actually mean by
>> "define" what most of us mean "guess". After all, you reject the concept
>> that conventions hold.
> Yes - I reject conventions. But YOU don't. You LOVE conventions.
>
> So what's the conventional definition of "definition" ?
> What's the conventional meaning of "meaning"?
>

Maybe you are starting to come into the light.

There is a reason some definitions are accepted by convention, because
without those base axiometic definitions, we have nothing to use to
define anything.

Ultimately, at the core, you reach concepts that can't be just defined
by words, as you don't have any words to use to define them.

This is the core of the conventions.

Remove the conventions, and you need to start from NOTHING, and you
can't make that first step, and those first steps are the messy one.

Just like most of us just take the numbers like 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... for
granted, as the actual logic to bootstrap to that point is more
complicated than most of us want to have to deal with.

So we just import that definition into our system from the established
conventions.

Normally we use the system, of

0 is just defined
1 = succ(0)
2 - succ(1)
....
n+1 - succ(n)

but there is also the following number system out of game theory:
(There is actually meaning to the notation, finding it is an exercise to
the reader).

0 = {|}
1 = {0|}
2 = {1|}
3 = {2|}

which also allows us to define some rationals as

1/2 = {0|1}

This system has some interesting properties when you start to add a few
new definitions into it, that are actauly fairly simple that gets us
into surreal numbers and beyond.

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 00:37:19 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 8/12/22 6:07 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Friday, 12 August 2022 at 23:48:38 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Right, and without further explanation of the apparent insanity, your
> >> system is shown to be useless.
> > Oh. So now you started caring about pragmatics?
> >
> > I thought you can just do abstraction without having to concretize everything.
> >
> >> Since you won't define your system, we can take ANYTHING you mean to
> >> mean whatever we want to, after all, you have declared that people don't
> >> need to be mind-readers, so we don't need to follow your intent in your
> >> statments, and anything that hasn't been explicitly defined, can be
> >> assuemd to be whatever we want it to be.
> > You can do that. But at least be honest why you are doing it.
> >
> > It's because you are grumpy old fart who doesn't like to be challenged by somebody half his age.
> >
> > You are just being dismissive and far too lazy to even open the Wikipedia page on *R.
> >
> >> Done to the meaning of the words you use, maybe you actually mean by
> >> "define" what most of us mean "guess". After all, you reject the concept
> >> that conventions hold.
> > Yes - I reject conventions. But YOU don't. You LOVE conventions.
> >
> > So what's the conventional definition of "definition" ?
> > What's the conventional meaning of "meaning"?
> >
> Maybe you are starting to come into the light.
>
> There is a reason some definitions are accepted by convention, because
> without those base axiometic definitions, we have nothing to use to
> define anything.
>
> Ultimately, at the core, you reach concepts that can't be just defined
> by words, as you don't have any words to use to define them.
>
> This is the core of the conventions.
>
> Remove the conventions, and you need to start from NOTHING, and you
> can't make that first step, and those first steps are the messy one.
>
> Just like most of us just take the numbers like 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... for
> granted, as the actual logic to bootstrap to that point is more
> complicated than most of us want to have to deal with.
>
> So we just import that definition into our system from the established
> conventions.
>
> Normally we use the system, of
>
> 0 is just defined
> 1 = succ(0)
> 2 - succ(1)
> ...
> n+1 - succ(n)
>
>
> but there is also the following number system out of game theory:
> (There is actually meaning to the notation, finding it is an exercise to
> the reader).
>
> 0 = {|}
> 1 = {0|}
> 2 = {1|}
> 3 = {2|}
>
> which also allows us to define some rationals as
>
> 1/2 = {0|1}
>
> This system has some interesting properties when you start to add a few
> new definitions into it, that are actauly fairly simple that gets us
> into surreal numbers and beyond.

Do you actually understand that the set-theoretic treatment of the numbers, and the Peano axiomatisation are developments in the last 150 years.

What is it that you think humans did for the 2500 years before that? We hadn’t defined the numbers! Oh nooooo! Can’t use them undefined.

On 8/12/22 6:41 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 00:37:19 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 8/12/22 6:07 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Friday, 12 August 2022 at 23:48:38 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Right, and without further explanation of the apparent insanity, your
>>>> system is shown to be useless.
>>> Oh. So now you started caring about pragmatics?
>>>
>>> I thought you can just do abstraction without having to concretize everything.
>>>
>>>> Since you won't define your system, we can take ANYTHING you mean to
>>>> mean whatever we want to, after all, you have declared that people don't
>>>> need to be mind-readers, so we don't need to follow your intent in your
>>>> statments, and anything that hasn't been explicitly defined, can be
>>>> assuemd to be whatever we want it to be.
>>> You can do that. But at least be honest why you are doing it.
>>>
>>> It's because you are grumpy old fart who doesn't like to be challenged by somebody half his age.
>>>
>>> You are just being dismissive and far too lazy to even open the Wikipedia page on *R.
>>>
>>>> Done to the meaning of the words you use, maybe you actually mean by
>>>> "define" what most of us mean "guess". After all, you reject the concept
>>>> that conventions hold.
>>> Yes - I reject conventions. But YOU don't. You LOVE conventions.
>>>
>>> So what's the conventional definition of "definition" ?
>>> What's the conventional meaning of "meaning"?
>>>
>> Maybe you are starting to come into the light.
>>
>> There is a reason some definitions are accepted by convention, because
>> without those base axiometic definitions, we have nothing to use to
>> define anything.
>>
>> Ultimately, at the core, you reach concepts that can't be just defined
>> by words, as you don't have any words to use to define them.
>>
>> This is the core of the conventions.
>>
>> Remove the conventions, and you need to start from NOTHING, and you
>> can't make that first step, and those first steps are the messy one.
>>
>> Just like most of us just take the numbers like 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... for
>> granted, as the actual logic to bootstrap to that point is more
>> complicated than most of us want to have to deal with.
>>
>> So we just import that definition into our system from the established
>> conventions.
>>
>> Normally we use the system, of
>>
>> 0 is just defined
>> 1 = succ(0)
>> 2 - succ(1)
>> ...
>> n+1 - succ(n)
>>
>>
>> but there is also the following number system out of game theory:
>> (There is actually meaning to the notation, finding it is an exercise to
>> the reader).
>>
>> 0 = {|}
>> 1 = {0|}
>> 2 = {1|}
>> 3 = {2|}
>>
>> which also allows us to define some rationals as
>>
>> 1/2 = {0|1}
>>
>> This system has some interesting properties when you start to add a few
>> new definitions into it, that are actauly fairly simple that gets us
>> into surreal numbers and beyond.
>
>
> Do you actually understand that the set-theoretic treatment of the numbers, and the Peano axiomatisation are developments in the last 150 years.
>
> What is it that you think humans did for the 2500 years before that? We hadn’t defined the numbers! Oh nooooo! Can’t use them undefined.
>
>

We took them as undefined common conventions.

Since you reject the concept of these conventions, you don't have that
base to stand on.

The conventions allow us to agree with "meta-rules" the basic rules that
build the system.

But if you reject the conventions, you don't have thosse meta-rules to
stand on.

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 00:48:41 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> We took them as undefined common conventions.
You don't even understand what defined and undefined means in context of Mathematics!

x/0 is undefined in all systems.
∞ - ∞ is undefined in the standard system

You don't even understand the implications of undefined behavior.

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

> Since you reject the concept of these conventions, you don't have that
> base to stand on.
I don't need a base to stand on. I am not a foundationalist. I am an anti-foundationalist.

Mathematics has no foundation. At best Mathematics has foundations (plural) - infinitely many foundations.
No single foundation can ever account for every possible use-case.
Every single foundation necessarily has drawbacks/trade-offs.

This is common sense to all programmers. Every programming paradigm has drawbacks!

Which is why we are multi-paradigm thinkers.
> The conventions allow us to agree with "meta-rules" the basic rules that
> build the system.
There is no such thing as THE rules!

The rules are after the fact! The rules are just design choices.

The Design (of the system) comes first. Not the rules.

Mathematics is invented, not discovered.

> But if you reject the conventions, you don't have thosse meta-rules to
> stand on.
Precisely! I don't need any meta-rules to "stand on" - I am not a foundationalist.

You are still stuck in the rut of thinking in terms of rules. What a good computer you are!

Perhaps you should consider an altrernative perspective? Not the rules of logic, but the logic of rules.

https://nguyentito.eu/locus-solum-mscs.pdf

On Mon, 8 Aug 2022 05:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> wrote:

> P= "This statement is false"
> Is P a proposition? This question depends largely on how P is
> interpreted, because the sentence itself does not have T/F value (it
> is given by its evaluator). Now, if the T/F value of the P as shown
> is defined by an evaluator, a circular argument is formed. In this
> regard, the sentence P should be classified as something like
> undefined or undecidable. P is not a 'proper' proposition.
>
> bool P() {
> return !Evalu_TF(P);
> };
>
> This 'undefined' solution extends to several paradoxes like "Achilles
> and the tortoise" and Supertask (the given problem does not contain
> the answer or confusing). The verdict, including 'circular argument',
> also applies to a number of foundamental math proofs. I just mention
> it. What involved is huge.

It is a category error.

/Flibble

On 8/13/22 5:09 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 00:48:41 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> We took them as undefined common conventions.
> You don't even understand what defined and undefined means in context of Mathematics!
>
> x/0 is undefined in all systems.
> ∞ - ∞ is undefined in the standard system
>
> You don't even understand the implications of undefined behavior.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undefined_behavior
>
>> Since you reject the concept of these conventions, you don't have that
>> base to stand on.
> I don't need a base to stand on. I am not a foundationalist. I am an anti-foundationalist.

And anti-social

>
> Mathematics has no foundation. At best Mathematics has foundations (plural) - infinitely many foundations.
> No single foundation can ever account for every possible use-case.
> Every single foundation necessarily has drawbacks/trade-offs.
>
> This is common sense to all programmers. Every programming paradigm has drawbacks!
>
> Which is why we are multi-paradigm thinkers.

Which is why you need to SPECIFY which foundation you are using as
statements mean different things in different foundations.

Because that gets clumsy, we assign a "default" foundation that is assumed.

Since you won't stand on a foundation, your "work" just colapses.

>
>> The conventions allow us to agree with "meta-rules" the basic rules that
>> build the system.
> There is no such thing as THE rules!
>
> The rules are after the fact! The rules are just design choices.
>
> The Design (of the system) comes first. Not the rules.
>
> Mathematics is invented, not discovered.

Not quite. There are core foundations of logic that have been discovered
if ignored lead to logic that can't support itself.

>
>> But if you reject the conventions, you don't have thosse meta-rules to
>> stand on.
> Precisely! I don't need any meta-rules to "stand on" - I am not a foundationalist.

Then you can't build anything. What is your FIRST principle, and what
does it stand on.

>
> You are still stuck in the rut of thinking in terms of rules. What a good computer you are!
>
> Perhaps you should consider an altrernative perspective? Not the rules of logic, but the logic of rules.
>
> https://nguyentito.eu/locus-solum-mscs.pdf
>
>
>

I will need a bit of time to absorb that thought, but the key is that it
appears that this logic of rules can only come about once you HAVE a set
of rules of logic to build it on.

The "Logic of Rules" will still need the "Rules of Logic" for it to work.

This seems to be a common problem with many of the "grand thinkers",
that they fail to see the assumptions they have built into their system
bacause they have just accepted them as pre-existing.

THey are using a foundation they refuse to see, and thus don't build
fully on it and the structure can colapse.

On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 2:09:34 AM UTC-7, Skep Dick wrote:
>
> Perhaps you should consider an altrernative perspective? Not the rules of logic, but the logic of rules.
>
> https://nguyentito.eu/locus-solum-mscs.pdf
>
Thank You for th reference to something that is new to me.

I will have to make significant effort to understand it. At first glance
the prognosis is not promising. It sounds too much like high power
nuttery. But I should not jump to a dismissal.