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

On 7/5/2024 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
 

It takes many revisions to precisely state my intuitions.
Every one is less than perfect. They keep getting better.

>

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.
 

It is a notion of God as an ordinary human that also was the
sole creator. Ultimately only an omniscient being could make
the 100% reliable call on this.

>
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 simply did not pay close enough attention to what I actually said.
Try reading again fifteen more times.

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.
 

I didn't forget. Later on I fill in more details. When I
give all of the details all at once people are overwhelmed.

>
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).
 

The whole purpose of my two decades of primary research on this
it to reject pathological expressions types as not truth bearers.
The expression that you provided was not even pathological.
~True(English, "cats are dogs") is true.

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.
 

The primary purpose of my two decades worth of primary research
is to recognize and reject pathological expressions.

>
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?
 

There is no sequence of truth preserving operations
that can reach the Liar Paradox or its negation.

>
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.

It can be sufficiently complete have all the details that
it needs and no more.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer