On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 15:06:41 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 12/16/22 12:13 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 04:27:19 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On 12/15/22 8:05 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 15:00:53 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> And with that sort of base, you can know nothing, so your system becomes
> >>>> worthless.
> >>>
> >>> What is the objective arbiter for "worth" ?
> >>>
> >> That it can generate something you value.
> > What's the objective arbiter of "value"?
> The collective agreement. Can you exchange it for something else of value.
Oh, so you exchange X for Y because the collective tells you X is as valuable as Y; and not because you value X as much as Y?!?

> >> Since a system that can't actually show anything can't generate
> >> anything, it can't generate anything of value.
> > That's such a weird conclusion! Surely, a system that can show that anything can generate anything then it will most certainly will generate valuable things. As well as non-valuable things.
> No, because the information content of the system is Zero.
So what? The system will contain both information AND misinformation!

Surely you can sort the information from the misinformation? All you need is a classification rule...

> > You just have to sort the valuable from the non-valuable!
> Which isn't possible inside a system if the system has gone inconsistent.
So what? That's a property of the system. Not a property of the contents of the system.

Surely you can sort the consistencies from the inconsistencies? All you need is a classification rule...

> > All you need is a classification rule to separate the valuable from the non-valuable. This should be easy for you - you love rules!
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule
> Right, and a system that is inconsistent can't reliably distinquish
> between classifications, since everything ends up in every classification.
Yeah. So? You have a sorting algorithm that can take things from one bucket and sort it into two. No?

> If you go outside the system, then you are looking at the value of that
> "Outside the system" classifier, not the value of the system.
Bullshit. You can extend a system with a classifier. Surely?

Let me help you with the type-signature of the function: [Expression] -> [ [Expression], [Expression] ]

In English: given a list of expressions produce two lists. A list of true expressions and a list of false expressions.

Example:

Input: [ "1+1=2", "1+2=4", "2+2=4", "2+2=9"]
Output: [ ["1+1=2", "2+2=4"], ["1+2=4", "2+2=9"] ]

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!

On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 15:07:07 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> If you can show a statement and its negation are true, you have proved a
> contradiction.
>
> It is a proven fact that, given a system with at least nominal power,
> that it is impossible to actually prove that it can't be inconsistent.
But that's just one conception of "consistency". What about the others?!?

What about the notion of "consistency" in distributed systems? Consistency as logical monotonicity

https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.01930

On 12/16/2022 6:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/16/22 2:25 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 12/15/2022 10:19 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 04:27:33 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> But what you say is not true. Contradictions don't cause explosions
>>> in my system. They only cause explosions in your system.
>>>
>>> It sure sounds like my system (at the very least) contains the
>>> knowledge of how NOT to blow up when it encounters a contradiction.
>>
>> So how does your system know/determine if it might have/encounter a
>> contradiction? Is it always correct in this? What do we know about
>> your system in re consistency, completeness, soundness, provability
>> limitations, and all the other properties whose definitions we misuse
>> in USENET newsgroups? Please explain using ROUND words; we're all
>> curious.
>
> If you can show a statement and its negation are true, you have proved a
> contradiction.
>
> It is a proven fact that, given a system with at least nominal power,
> that it is impossible to actually prove that it can't be inconsistent.

Richard, I wasn't asking you for a trivial answer to my question. Skep
Dick wrote

>>> It sure sounds like my system (at the very least) contains the
>>> knowledge of how NOT to blow up when it encounters a contradiction.

and that led to my question about his system, not yours. Quit trying to
save the world and future browsers of the USENET archive. We can take
care of ourselves.
--
Jeff Barnett

On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 17:13:55 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> On 12/16/2022 12:13 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 08:04:17 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >> On 12/15/2022 10:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>> On 12/15/22 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 12/15/2022 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>> On 12/15/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 12/14/22 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 12/13/2022 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 12/13/22 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Unless an expression of language is a semantic tautology is it
> >>>>>>>>> not an
> >>>>>>>>>> analytic expression of language.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Nope, analytic expressions don't need to be a tautology.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For instance, Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups can be
> >>>>>>>>> a true analytical expression. its Truth is dependent on the
> >>>>>>>>> implied meaning of some of the terms, so it is NOT a Tautology,
> >>>>>>>>> which must be true in ALL models of the system.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> <sarcasm>
> >>>>>>>> Yes maybe there is a possible world where the feline animal of a
> >>>>>>>> cat is also an office building. This makes perfect sense to me.
> >>>>>>>> When this cat sits on your lap and purrs you are crushed by its
> >>>>>>>> thousands of tons of weight.
> >>>>>>>> </sarcasm>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nope, you show you lack of understanding. You don't seem to
> >>>>>>> understand the difference between a universal statement and a
> >>>>>>> statment of existance.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This shows your ignorance. You logic if FULL of these sorts of
> >>>>>>> Fallacies.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If the context is Feline vs Canine, there are in different groups..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If the context is Animal vs Vegetable, there are NOT in different
> >>>>>>> groups.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Since the model we are working in matters, it is not a Tautology.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That a cat is an animal is a Haskell Curry elementary theorem of
> >>>>>> English, thus making it true by definition, thus a tautology.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, you still don't understand the statement.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> YOU FAIL.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Statement: "Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups" is a
> >>>>> statement that can be a true analytical expression but can't be a
> >>>>> Tautology.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a formula
> >>>> or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
> >>>
> >>> Right, and that statement is NOT true in every possible interpetation,
> >>> but IS a possibly True Analytical Expression, depending on the
> >>> interpreation put into the words.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> IF the Animal Groups in question are Feline vs Canine, it is true.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If the Animal Groups in question are Mammilian, it is false.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thus, it is NOT a Tautology, but could be true.
> >>>>
> >>>> A cat is always an animal and never an office building. That mammals are
> >>>> also animals still does not turn a cat into an office building.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So you still don't understand what I am saying.
> >>>
> >>> I guess you are just proving you are stupid.
> >>>
> >> animal
> >> |
> >> mammal
> >> | |
> >> | canine
> >> | |
> >> | dog
> >> |
> >> feline
> >> |
> >> cat
> >>> A cat is a feline
> >>> A cat is a mammal
> >>>
> >>> A dog is a canine
> >>> A dog is a mammal
> >>>
> >>> a feline is not a canine, so different animal groups
> >>>
> >>> a mammal is the same group as a mammal, so not differerent animal groups.
> >>>>
> >>>
> > So what are you going to do when you are dealing with a many-sorted logic? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-sorted_logic
> >
> > e.g things "belonging" to multiple parents.
> >
> > where would you put the node "carnivore" vs "herbivore" vs "omnivore" ?
> >
> It looks like you are starting to get it.
> Those would be values of the eating_type property of animal.
> Properties of a node are its child nodes.
I got it all along.

In the end you are going to end up with a relational system - a data model. You've heard of SQL, right?

And the structure which defines your data is called a schema. You've heard of schemas, right?
You've heard of comprehension schemas ,right?
You've heard of restricted and unrestricted comprehension, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_schema_of_specification#Unrestricted_comprehension

Ask any database engineer to tell you what they hate most in their life? Schema evolution!

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

On 12/16/2022 12:08 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 17:13:55 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/16/2022 12:13 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 08:04:17 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/2022 10:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/15/22 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/15/2022 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/15/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/14/22 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/2022 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/22 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Unless an expression of language is a semantic tautology is it
>>>>>>>>>>> not an
>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic expression of language.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, analytic expressions don't need to be a tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups can be
>>>>>>>>>>> a true analytical expression. its Truth is dependent on the
>>>>>>>>>>> implied meaning of some of the terms, so it is NOT a Tautology,
>>>>>>>>>>> which must be true in ALL models of the system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <sarcasm>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes maybe there is a possible world where the feline animal of a
>>>>>>>>>> cat is also an office building. This makes perfect sense to me.
>>>>>>>>>> When this cat sits on your lap and purrs you are crushed by its
>>>>>>>>>> thousands of tons of weight.
>>>>>>>>>> </sarcasm>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, you show you lack of understanding. You don't seem to
>>>>>>>>> understand the difference between a universal statement and a
>>>>>>>>> statment of existance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This shows your ignorance. You logic if FULL of these sorts of
>>>>>>>>> Fallacies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the context is Feline vs Canine, there are in different groups.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the context is Animal vs Vegetable, there are NOT in different
>>>>>>>>> groups.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since the model we are working in matters, it is not a Tautology.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That a cat is an animal is a Haskell Curry elementary theorem of
>>>>>>>> English, thus making it true by definition, thus a tautology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you still don't understand the statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YOU FAIL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Statement: "Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups" is a
>>>>>>> statement that can be a true analytical expression but can't be a
>>>>>>> Tautology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a formula
>>>>>> or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and that statement is NOT true in every possible interpetation,
>>>>> but IS a possibly True Analytical Expression, depending on the
>>>>> interpreation put into the words.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IF the Animal Groups in question are Feline vs Canine, it is true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the Animal Groups in question are Mammilian, it is false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus, it is NOT a Tautology, but could be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A cat is always an animal and never an office building. That mammals are
>>>>>> also animals still does not turn a cat into an office building.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you still don't understand what I am saying.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess you are just proving you are stupid.
>>>>>
>>>> animal
>>>> |
>>>> mammal
>>>> | |
>>>> | canine
>>>> | |
>>>> | dog
>>>> |
>>>> feline
>>>> |
>>>> cat
>>>>> A cat is a feline
>>>>> A cat is a mammal
>>>>>
>>>>> A dog is a canine
>>>>> A dog is a mammal
>>>>>
>>>>> a feline is not a canine, so different animal groups
>>>>>
>>>>> a mammal is the same group as a mammal, so not differerent animal groups.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> So what are you going to do when you are dealing with a many-sorted logic? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-sorted_logic
>>>
>>> e.g things "belonging" to multiple parents.
>>>
>>> where would you put the node "carnivore" vs "herbivore" vs "omnivore" ?
>>>
>> It looks like you are starting to get it.
>> Those would be values of the eating_type property of animal.
>> Properties of a node are its child nodes.
> I got it all along.
>

Then you would agree with this..
G ↔ (F ⊬ G)
G is true if and only if G is unprovable in F
∃G ∈ F (G ↔ (F ⊬ G)) is simply false

within this analytical truth template:

Within the foundation of analytical truth an expression of language is
only true if it is either stipulated to be true or derived by applying
truth preserving operations to expressions of language having the
semantic property of Boolean true.

> In the end you are going to end up with a relational system - a data model. You've heard of SQL, right?
>
> And the structure which defines your data is called a schema. You've heard of schemas, right?
> You've heard of comprehension schemas ,right?
> You've heard of restricted and unrestricted comprehension, right?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_schema_of_specification#Unrestricted_comprehension
>
> Ask any database engineer to tell you what they hate most in their life? Schema evolution!
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_evolution
>

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

On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 20:33:16 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> G is true if and only if G is unprovable in F
Why are you conflating provability with truth?

"G is provable" and "G is false" can both be true statements.

On 12/15/2022 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/15/22 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/14/2022 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>>> Nope. That is just your failure to understand what it Truth, and are
>>> confusing it with Knowledge.
>>>
>>> Your definition lead to inconsistencies like ending up with
>>> statements for which no proof exists but are not Unprovable.
>>>
>>
>> True/false/not a truth bearer/currently unknown
>
> "Currently Unknown" is NOT a valut of Truth, but Knowledge.
>
>>
>> Inconsistencies are screened out as not elements of the set of truth in
>> the correction to the foundation of analytical truth that I propose.
>>
>
> You are confusing Truth with knowledge.

KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH
KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH
KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH
KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH

I have said that before and you were unable to remember what I said.
I have said that before and you were unable to remember what I said.
I have said that before and you were unable to remember what I said.
I have said that before and you were unable to remember what I said.

>
> You admit you are not all-knowing, so you are showing your ignoorance
> when you claim that Knowledge == Truth.
>
>
> Since you are proving you don't know the difference between the two, you
> have disqualified yourself in the field.

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

On 12/15/2022 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.

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

On 12/15/2022 10:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/15/22 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/14/2022 7:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/14/22 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/13/2022 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/13/22 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>>>>>> If this requires counting all the way to infinity to verify then
>>>>>> it is
>>>>>> not a tautology. If it is possible to verify in finite time then
>>>>>> it is a
>>>>>> tautology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, your definition of an analytical expression says there are
>>>>> expression that you can't tell if they ARE analytical expressions,
>>>>> and thus you don't know if you can talk about them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems like A pretty weak system.
>>>> Every expression of language that does not require any sense data
>>>> from the sense organs to verify that it is true is an analytic
>>>> expression of language. That you are stuck in rebuttal mode is a
>>>> form of dishonesty.
>>>>
>>>> That you disagree with stipulated definitions is an example of
>>>> dishonesty.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that you try to stipluate definitions that aren't
>>> actuall part of the field.
>>>
>>
>> The "field" that I am talking about is my creation of the foundation
>> of analytical truth.
>>
>>> You keep trying to stipulate that only things that are KNOWN are
>>> True, which isn't a correct statement.
>>>
>>
>> So we are back to the possibility that cats are actually office
>> buildings and thus not animals?
>
> Nope, you are just showing your lack of comprension.
>
>>
>> Haskell Curry elementary theorems of English are tautologies.
>>
>>> That just proves you are not working in the right field.
>>
>> A am establishing the brand new field of the correct foundation of
>> analytical truth.
>>
>
> 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.

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

On 12/15/2022 10:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/15/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/14/2022 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>> When dealing with possible infinite sets, one definition of "same
>>> size" is that there can be a bijection made between the two sets,
>>> i.e. you can build a one-to-one mapping between the sets such that
>>> EVERY element in one set is mapped to PRECISELY a unique element in
>>> the other. If that can be done, then the sets are defined to be the
>>> same size.
>>>
>>> Note, there may be other mappings between the sets that have left
>>> overs on one side or the other (even an infinite number of them), but
>>> if a bijection exists, then they are the same size.
>>>
>>> This definition also works for finite sets.
>>>
>>> Note also, that when you get into infinities, many (if not most) of
>>> the comfortable rules we are used to just
>>>
>>> This IS a field that I have studied (an not just learned by rote)
>>> over the many years of my life.
>>>
>>
>> If you did not actively examine the philosophical foundations of the
>> notion of analytic truth itself and make sure that all of the rules of
>> math and logic are consistent with these foundations then you merely
>> have learned-by-rote knowledge of these things.
>>
>> Addendum you could not have possibly have done this because the
>> philosophical foundations of the notion of analytic truth itself have
>> never previously been correctly established
>>
>
> No, the problem is that Mathematics goes BEYOND the constraints of
> limiting its definition of Truth to JUST what is analytically proveable.
>
> You are making the INCORRECT assumption that only Analytical Truth applies.
>

I am establishing (for the very first time) the foundation of analytical
truth. Previous attempts by others failed because they did not bother to
divide analytic truth from empirical truth.

The Münchhausen trilemma cannot exist within my foundation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

(1) Expressions of language that are stipulated to have the semantic
value of Boolean true such as "cats are animals".

(2) Expressions of language derived by applying truth preserving
operations to (1) and/or the output of (2).

> You system confuses Analytical Proof with actual Truth.
>

Every expression of language that cannot possibly be proven to be true
or false is not a truth bearer.

>>
>>> I wil also note that I have a minor learning disability that makes it
>>
>> Please elaborate on this I really want to have much more empathy for you.
>
> A do not learn things by "Rote", I need to understand WHY something is
> true to be able to easily remember it.
>
> I have very limited ability to remember just "random" facts, but when I
> can see an order to the system, my brain can process and store it.
>

How bad is this and is it the reason that I have to tell you the same
thing 50 times before you ever notice that I said it once?

I had been taking this as horrifically terrible disrespect.

> Typically, I remember a few basic rules, and rapidly rederive the
> combinations of them, until eventually the combinations work themselves
> into memory store.
>
>>
>>> very hard to learn things "by rote", but I need to have at least good
>>> understanding of WHY things work the way they do to remember them.
>>>
>>
>

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

On 12/15/2022 10:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/15/22 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/14/2022 7:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/14/22 9:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/2022 8:21 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 9:59:47 AM UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Theorem 1.
>>>>>> Every valid logical expression is provable. Equivalently, every
>>>>>> logical
>>>>>> expression is either satisfiable or refutable.
>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel/#ComThe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The conventional definition of incompleteness:
>>>>>> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should actually be written as:
>>>>>> Valid(φ) ↔ ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊢ ¬φ))
>>>>>> thus abolishing Incompleteness.
>>>>>    Valid(φ) ↔ ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊢ ¬φ))
>>>>> <=> Valid(φ) ↔ TRUE
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Correction*
>>>>   True(φ) ↔ (T ⊢ φ)
>>>> ¬True(φ) ↔ (T ⊬ φ)
>>>> False(φ) ↔ (T ⊢ ¬φ)
>>>
>>> Which since you say Godel's G is ¬True but also not False.
>>>
>>> Since G is a statement of the form T ⊬ x, that means that since G is
>>> ¬True, that T ⊬ x, and since G is ¬False we have that ¬(T ⊢ ¬φ)
>>>
>>> Which means that (T ⊬ ¬x) and from the previous (T ⊬ x)
>>>
>>> Thus either Provability (since that is the sort of statement x is)
>>> isn't a truth bearer, or x is a statement that can neither be proven
>>> or disproven.
>>>
>>
>> Because the Gödel incompleteness theorem forms an exact isomorphism of
>> Tarski's undefinability theorem any refutation of Tarski is a
>> refutation of Gödel. The formalized Liar paradox is an exact isomorphism:
>
> So you actuallky need to refute Tarski, which means you need to actually
> understand it,
>

Tarski was successful in proving that a self-contradictory expression of
language x is true when the proof occurs in a system (his meta-theory)
where x is not self-contradictory.

He never noticed that it was not true (in his theory) only because it
was self-contradictory, thus never noticed that x is not a truth bearer.

>>
>> (3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True.
>>      ~Provable(x) ↔ True(x).
>> x is true if and only if x is unprovable
>>
>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>
>> G ↔ (F ⊬ G)
>> G is true if and only if G is unprovable in F
>>
>>
>>
>

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

On 12/16/2022 1:11 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 20:33:16 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> G is true if and only if G is unprovable in F
> Why are you conflating provability with truth?
>
> "G is provable" and "G is false" can both be true statements.
>
>

I am stipulating that the fundamental nature of analytic truth itself
specifies that true requires provable. Math and logic people never
noticed this because they never bother to look at these things and
simply take the math rules as if they were the infallible word-of-God.

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

On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 21:47:36 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> I am stipulating that the fundamental nature of analytic truth itself
> specifies that true requires provable.
No, it doesn't.

You can't prove that zero is a number, but it's true. By definition.

On 12/16/2022 3:42 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 21:47:36 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> I am stipulating that the fundamental nature of analytic truth itself
>> specifies that true requires provable.
> No, it doesn't.
>
> You can't prove that zero is a number, but it's true. By definition.
>
>

Mendelson shows how to prove expressions of language that are true by
definition: AKA theorems: ⊢𝒞

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

On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 23:54:45 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> Mendelson shows how to prove expressions of language that are true by
> definition: AKA theorems: ⊢𝒞
Great!

Now use Mendelson's technique to prove that you are stupid. Because I've defined you that way.

On 12/16/2022 4:29 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 23:54:45 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> Mendelson shows how to prove expressions of language that are true by
>> definition: AKA theorems: ⊢𝒞
> Great!
>
> Now use Mendelson's technique to prove that you are stupid. Because I've defined you that way.
>

That contradicts other axioms that have already been defined in the system.

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

On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 00:49:06 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> On 12/16/2022 4:29 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 23:54:45 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >> Mendelson shows how to prove expressions of language that are true by
> >> definition: AKA theorems: ⊢𝒞
> > Great!
> >
> > Now use Mendelson's technique to prove that you are stupid. Because I've defined you that way.
> >
> That contradicts other axioms that have already been defined in the system.
Impossible.

The first axiom of the system I am talking about is "contradictions don't exist".

A contradiction would contradict the non-existence of contradictions.

On 12/16/2022 5:02 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 00:49:06 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/16/2022 4:29 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 23:54:45 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>> Mendelson shows how to prove expressions of language that are true by
>>>> definition: AKA theorems: ⊢𝒞
>>> Great!
>>>
>>> Now use Mendelson's technique to prove that you are stupid. Because I've defined you that way.
>>>
>> That contradicts other axioms that have already been defined in the system.
> Impossible.
>
> The first axiom of the system I am talking about is "contradictions don't exist".
>
> A contradiction would contradict the non-existence of contradictions.

I am talking about the real formal system of the set of all knowledge
not some sarcastic bullshit.

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

On 12/16/22 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/15/2022 10:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/15/22 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2022 7:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/22 9:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/14/2022 8:21 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 9:59:47 AM UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Theorem 1.
>>>>>>> Every valid logical expression is provable. Equivalently, every
>>>>>>> logical
>>>>>>> expression is either satisfiable or refutable.
>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel/#ComThe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The conventional definition of incompleteness:
>>>>>>> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should actually be written as:
>>>>>>> Valid(φ) ↔ ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊢ ¬φ))
>>>>>>> thus abolishing Incompleteness.
>>>>>>    Valid(φ) ↔ ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊢ ¬φ))
>>>>>> <=> Valid(φ) ↔ TRUE
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Correction*
>>>>>   True(φ) ↔ (T ⊢ φ)
>>>>> ¬True(φ) ↔ (T ⊬ φ)
>>>>> False(φ) ↔ (T ⊢ ¬φ)
>>>>
>>>> Which since you say Godel's G is ¬True but also not False.
>>>>
>>>> Since G is a statement of the form T ⊬ x, that means that since G is
>>>> ¬True, that T ⊬ x, and since G is ¬False we have that ¬(T ⊢ ¬φ)
>>>>
>>>> Which means that (T ⊬ ¬x) and from the previous (T ⊬ x)
>>>>
>>>> Thus either Provability (since that is the sort of statement x is)
>>>> isn't a truth bearer, or x is a statement that can neither be proven
>>>> or disproven.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because the Gödel incompleteness theorem forms an exact isomorphism
>>> of Tarski's undefinability theorem any refutation of Tarski is a
>>> refutation of Gödel. The formalized Liar paradox is an exact
>>> isomorphism:
>>
>> So you actuallky need to refute Tarski, which means you need to
>> actually understand it,
>>
>
> Tarski was successful in proving that a self-contradictory expression of
> language x is true when the proof occurs in a system (his meta-theory)
> where x is not self-contradictory.
>
> He never noticed that it was not true (in his theory) only because it
> was self-contradictory, thus never noticed that x is not a truth bearer.

No, your problem is that you assume Truth = Provable, when it isn't.

Perhaps, in your logic system where you define that the only true things
are things that are provable, you don't run into this issue.

The problem is you don't understand how restricted your logic system is
going to end up being.

For instance, You are going to find that your mathematics are going to
be much more limited, and many of the concepts that we are used to can't
be expressed in your system.

>
>>>
>>> (3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True.
>>>      ~Provable(x) ↔ True(x).
>>> x is true if and only if x is unprovable
>>>
>>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>>
>>> G ↔ (F ⊬ G)
>>> G is true if and only if G is unprovable in F
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

On 12/16/22 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/15/2022 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/15/22 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2022 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>> Nope. That is just your failure to understand what it Truth, and are
>>>> confusing it with Knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> Your definition lead to inconsistencies like ending up with
>>>> statements for which no proof exists but are not Unprovable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> True/false/not a truth bearer/currently unknown
>>
>> "Currently Unknown" is NOT a valut of Truth, but Knowledge.
>>
>>>
>>> Inconsistencies are screened out as not elements of the set of truth in
>>> the correction to the foundation of analytical truth that I propose.
>>>
>>
>> You are confusing Truth with knowledge.
>
> KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH
> KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH
> KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH
> KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH
>
> I have said that before and you were unable to remember what I said.
> I have said that before and you were unable to remember what I said.
> I have said that before and you were unable to remember what I said.
> I have said that before and you were unable to remember what I said.

Since KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH it is thus not equal to it, why do you try to
limit truth to what is known?

You statement says there ARE things that are True but not known.

You don't seem to understand set theory.

You are proving you don't understand what you are talking about.

You are just proving yourself unqualified to talk about such things.

>
>>
>> You admit you are not all-knowing, so you are showing your ignoorance
>> when you claim that Knowledge == Truth.
>>
>>
>> Since you are proving you don't know the difference between the two,
>> you have disqualified yourself in the field.
>

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.

Your confusion on this means the rest of your statements are meaningless.

>
> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
> *Key element of the Tarski Undefinability proof*
>
> (3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True.
>  ~Provable(x) ↔ True(x).
> x is true if and only if x is unprovable
> ∃x (~Provable(x) ↔ True(x)) is simply false
>
> The next one is a little more accurate because Tarski does not bother to
> carefully keep track of whether an expression is encoded in his theory
> or his meta-theory. F is the formal system (AKA theory) that G is
> referring to.
>
> G ↔ (F ⊬ G)
> G is true if and only if G is unprovable in F
> ∃G ∈ F (G ↔ (F ⊬ G)) is simply false
>
> Within the foundation of analytical truth an expression of language is
> only true if it is either stipulated to be true or derived by applying
> truth preserving operations to expressions of language having the
> semantic property of Boolean true.
>
> Stipulated to be true is Haskell Curry elementary theorems of formal
> systems or verified facts of natural language.
> https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
>

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.

On 12/16/22 11:24 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/16/2022 7:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/16/22 1:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2022 10:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/22 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/15/2022 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/15/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/14/22 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/2022 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/22 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Unless an expression of language is a semantic tautology is it
>>>>>>>>>> not an
>>>>>>>>>>> analytic expression of language.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, analytic expressions don't need to be a tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For instance, Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups can
>>>>>>>>>> be a true analytical expression. its Truth is dependent on the
>>>>>>>>>> implied meaning of some of the terms, so it is NOT a
>>>>>>>>>> Tautology, which must be true in ALL models of the system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <sarcasm>
>>>>>>>>> Yes maybe there is a possible world where the feline animal of
>>>>>>>>> a cat is also an office building. This makes perfect sense to
>>>>>>>>> me. When this cat sits on your lap and purrs you are crushed by
>>>>>>>>> its thousands of tons of weight.
>>>>>>>>> </sarcasm>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, you show you lack of understanding. You don't seem to
>>>>>>>> understand the difference between a universal statement and a
>>>>>>>> statment of existance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This shows your ignorance. You logic if FULL of these sorts of
>>>>>>>> Fallacies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the context is Feline vs Canine, there are in different groups.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the context is Animal vs Vegetable, there are NOT in
>>>>>>>> different groups.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since the model we are working in matters, it is not a Tautology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That a cat is an animal is a Haskell Curry elementary theorem of
>>>>>>> English, thus making it true by definition, thus a tautology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you still don't understand the statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YOU FAIL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Statement: "Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups" is a
>>>>>> statement that can be a true analytical expression but can't be a
>>>>>> Tautology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a
>>>>> formula
>>>>> or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
>>>>
>>>> Right, and that statement is NOT true in every possible
>>>> interpetation, but IS a possibly True Analytical Expression,
>>>> depending on the interpreation put into the words.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> IF the Animal Groups in question are Feline vs Canine, it is true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the Animal Groups in question are Mammilian, it is false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus, it is NOT a Tautology, but could be true.
>>>>>
>>>>> A cat is always an animal and never an office building. That
>>>>> mammals are
>>>>> also animals still does not turn a cat into an office building.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you still don't understand what I am saying.
>>>>
>>>> I guess you are just proving you are stupid.
>>>>
>>>
>>> animal
>>>    |
>>> mammal
>>>    | |
>>>    | canine
>>>    | |
>>>    | dog
>>>    |
>>> feline
>>>    |
>>>   cat
>>>
>>>> A cat is a feline
>>>> A cat is a mammal
>>>>
>>>> A dog is a canine
>>>> A dog is a mammal
>>>>
>>>> a feline is not a canine, so different animal groups
>>>>
>>>> a mammal is the same group as a mammal, so not differerent animal
>>>> groups.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Whch means that the statement "Cats and Dogs are in different animal
>> groups" NOT a Tautology, but possibly an True Analytical Expression
>
> In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a formula
> or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
>
> If anyone "interprets" that cats are dogs they are necessarily
> incorrect. Cats are not dogs is true in every interpretation.
>

You are still showing you aren't reading what I am writing, possibly
because you are too stupid.

I NEVER said cats were dogs.

I said that cats and dogs can belong to the same animal group (like
Mammal) or they could be in diferent animal groups (Feline and Canine)

This means the statement "Cats and Dogs are in different animal
>> groups" NOT a Tautology, but can be a True Analytic Statement in the
right model.

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.

PERIOD.

Any claims otherwize just proves you are a STUPID LIAR that doesn't
understand how logic works.

YOU ARE NOT GOD, and thus can't change the rules of the game.

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