Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise

On 7/5/24 6:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/5/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/5/24 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/5/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/5/24 4:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/5/2024 2:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/5/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:

>
Every expression such that neither X nor ~X is provable in L
is simply not a truth bearer in L. This does correctly reject
self-contradictory expressions that wold otherwise be interpreted
as the incompleteness of L.

>
FALSE STATEMENT.
>

>
Can't be false it is stipulated.

>
Can't stipulate that something is true.
>

>
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its verbal meaning} must have a connection by truth preserving
operations to its {verbal meaning} is a tautology.

>
But that isn't what you said above. You keep on getting your lies mixed up.
>

I am fallible so the first time that I say something
it will probably not be infallible.

Then ADMIT an error rather then say someone else is wrong because you didn't say what you meant.

 

True on the basis of its verbal meaning isn't a thing in formal system, so not a Tautology, unless you mean by "verbal meaning" the meaning assigned to the term in the system.
>

Se that I have to update it again because I am fallible.
Did you know that the Gnostic Demiurge concept of God is fallible?

And that Gnosticism is just a heresy that is inconsistent, and thus not true.

 That every expression of language that is {true on the basis
of its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection
by truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using
language} is a tautology.

No, only if you restrict the language it can use. For instance, On the basis of natural language Cats are Cats is a statement that is true by the meaning of the words, as it Blurgs are Blurgs. But in a system that doesn't define Cats, or Blurgs (like basic mathematics) there is not possible connection by truth preserving operations to the any meaning since it uses undefined terms in the system.
You keep om forgetting that formal systems are not defined in terms of natural language, so you can't use natural language definition to work with them.

 This refutes Tarski undefinability for the entire set of
knowledge that can be expressed using language.

But that isn't what Tarski was talking about.
After all, you STILL can't give a consitant value for the expression True(L, x) for x defined in L as ~True(L,x).
Clearly our language allows us to define an x that way, and whatever value True(L,x) is defined (either True or False) it becomes a contradiction.

 It sure as Hell does not get confused by any pathological
expressions that refer to themselves such as the key
expression that attempt to refute truthmaker maximalism:
This sentence has no truthmaker

And why not? what is the value of True(L,x) from above?

 The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
using formal language and formalized natural language.
 

and can't be an completely accurate model of the actual world, as we don't know enough about it.