On 5/13/22 4:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 3:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/13/22 3:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2022 2:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/22 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 12:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/22 1:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes
>>>>>>> a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and
>>>>>>> the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive
>>>>>>> argument is said to be invalid. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the Moon is made of green cheese then all dogs are cats is
>>>>>>> valid and even though premises and conclusion are semantically
>>>>>>> unrelated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Here is my correction to that issue*
>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes
>>>>>>> a form such that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of all
>>>>>>> of its premises.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, have you done the basic investigation to find out how much of
>>>>>> conventional logic you invalidate with that change?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It categorically changes everything that is broken.
>>>>
>>>> So, you are saying we need to throw out EVERYTHING we know and start
>>>> over?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Change everything that diverges from my spec:
>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
>>> form such that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of all of
>>> its premises.
>>>
>>>> I think, especially with the comment below, people will decide that
>>>> your "new" logic systm isn't worth the cost to switch to.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, that it may be hard to define "necessary consequence" in a
>>>>>> formal matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> {A,B} ⊢ C only when truth preserving operations are applied to
>>>>> {A,B} to derive C.
>>>>
>>>> And what do you define truth perserving as?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Semantic relevance is maintained.
>>>
>>>> Normally the phrase means that True Premises always generate True
>>>> Results (which means the statement "If the moon is made of green
>>>> cheese then ll dogs are cats" IS Truth Preserving, since any time
>>>> the premise is true (never) the conclusion is true.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It should be noted that your example, while considered an vaild
>>>>>> inference by normal logic, can never be used to actually prove its
>>>>>> conclusion, so doesn't actually cause problems in normal logic
>>>>>> (can you show a case where it does?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> With my correction true and unprovable is impossible, unprovable
>>>>> simply means untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok, then you have just stated that your new logic system can't
>>>> handle mathematics, and thus "Computer SCience" no longer exists as
>>>> a logical system.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It corrects the divergence of classical and symbolic logic from
>>> correct reasoning.
>>>
>>>> This makes you system not much more than a toy for most people.
>>>>
>>>>>> Note, that at least by some meanings of your words, it could be
>>>>>> construed that you only accept as a correct deductive argument,
>>>>>> and arguement whose premises can at least some times be true, but
>>>>>> there are some statements we don't know if they CAN be sometimes
>>>>>> true, so your logic system would seem to not allow doing logic
>>>>>> with that sort of statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> An analytic statement is only known to be true when it is derived
>>>>> by applying only truth preserving operations to all of its premises
>>>>> and all of its premises are known to be true, otherwise its truth
>>>>> value is unknown.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> KNOWN to be True, not IS TRUE.
>>>
>>> It remains unknown until it is known to be true or false.
>>> My system only eliminates impossibly true or false.
>>>
>>
>> So, you don't know what is still valid to use?
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Your statement even admits that truth value might be unknow, which
>>>> might allow it to even be UNKNOWABLE (maybe just in that system) if
>>>> it can't be proven or refuted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> unprovable in the system means untrue in the system.
>>
>> And what does 'untrue' mean?
>>
>
> Untrue means the same thing as Prolog's negation as failure.

Which means... ?

Prolog, as I remember, ASSUMES that anything not provable is FALSE (not
'untrue').

>
>> We know that there is a number that solves an equation, but we don't
>> know that number, or how to compute that number.
>>
>> Can we say that it is true that such a number exists?
>>
>
> If you defined your terms correctly, then yes because this has been
> stipulated in your deinitions.
>
>> This means that we can define the floor of that number, which will be
>> an integer (call it N), is it true that this number exists?
>>
>> That interger, MUST be either even or odd, so we know that either
>> iseven(N) is true or isodd(N) is true.
>>
>> By your logic, the 'truth value' of both of those must be 'untrue'
>> since we can not prove which one it is.
>>
>> This is the sort of problem you run into with your system.
>>
>>>
>>>> There is NOTHING about an analytic statement that says it can only
>>>> be true if it is provable. Note, "its truth value is unknown"
>>>> doesn't mean it doesn't have a truth value, just that we don't know
>>>> what that value is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Within any formal system unprovable in the system means untrue in the
>>> system.
>>>
>>> The entire body of analytic truth is constructed only on the basis of
>>> semantic connections between expressions of language, or expressions
>>> that are stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true.
>>> Lacking both of these and the expression is untrue.
>>>
>>> Since axioms are provable on the basis that they are axioms then both
>>> of these factors that make an expression true also make it provable.
>>>
>>
>> You clearly are just stating words by rote and not actually
>> understanding them.
>>
>
> There are only two possible ways that any analytical expression of
> language can possibly be true:
> (1) It is stipulated to be true.
> (2) It is derived by applying only truth preserving operations to (1) or
> the consequences of (2).

So there exists an integer number N is neither Even or Odd? (it is
untrue for both tests)

I don't think you actually understand what that means.

>
>> Analytic Truth is truth that is provable, that is correct, but it
>> accepts that there is OTHER things that happen to be true but are not
>> provable.
>>
>
> Analytic truth includes every expression of language that can be
> completely verified as totally true entirely on the basis of its meaning
> without requiring any sense data from the sense organs.
>
> Empirical expressions of language also require sense data from the sense
> organs to verify their truth.

You still don't understand, do you.

You still confuse Truth with Knowledge.

Pitiful.

>
>> You are making a Category Error in you logic system, and confusing
>> Knowledge with Truth.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> You are confusing Knowledge with Truth.
>>>>
>>>> Your whole system is built on a Category Error.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>