Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:So you ADMIT to making claims about a statement you don't understand.On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:I don't need to know anything about what he was talking aboutOn 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:>The entire body of expressions that are {true on the basis of their>
meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated relations between
finite strings.
>
You do know that what you are describing when applied to Formal Systems are the axioms of the system and the most primitively provable theorems.
>
YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model of the
actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>
except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect answer.
Nope. Why is it that you keep on making errors based on your misunderstanding?I understand this much more deeply than you do.>>>>
You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually means.
>
Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between finite
strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying truth
preserving operations to these axioms.
Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>
In other words, you don't understand that "True" allows infinite paths, while "Proof" requires finite paths.Since you INCORRECTLY think that unprovable statements can not be true.(b) Derived from (a)
(a) Stipulated true.
STRAW MANTry and prove all of the details of that.>>You also don't seem to understand the requirements of "Context" when applying the meaning of the words.>
>
Sure I do. What I do not do is allow a wide range of subjective
interpretation. {The cow is dead} cannot be interpreted as
{The cow is running around} WITHOUT LYING.
Nope, you don't understand actual context and only look at oversimplifications.
>
Try and prove how {some dead cows} do {run around in the pasture}.
But it is a STRAW MAN analogy, since it depends on properties that the original didn't have.For instance, no one but you has talked about cows.It is an analogy, ever heard of isomorphism?
>
That is ONE model of it, and one that is basically incompatible with your "True on the basis of meaning", as the symbolic form of logic removes the meaning of the symbols and becomes a pure syntactic system. "Semantics" becomes what the application of the rules can show.You just don't understand some of the fine details of logic, and thus you just assume the statements made are wrong.YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS FOUNDATION OF LOGIC
>
All of logic is essentially relations between finite strings.
No, the simple answer is that if All x are y, and NO x are y, then there does not exist an x.It is possible that All the cows are dead, and All the cows are running around to be true at the same time, if there are no cows present.The you memorized the notion of vacuous truth is worthless.
>
The tricky part is when you try to plug the notion of
"vacuous truth" into its relations between finite strings basis.
The problem is you haven't SHOWN a correct inference, in part because you haven't provided a true inference chain.>That notion of {simulating termination analyzer} <is> validated>>For instance, in Computation Theory, the only simulation that can be used to determine behavior are non-aborted simulations, so that is the only sort of simulation actually considered to be a normal simulation.>
>
My ideas can be directly derived from the foundational truths that
I listed above pertaining to relations between finite strings.
But that isn't the definition of "Meaning of the words".
>
within the notion of {termination analyzer} on the basis of correct
inference.
That you even now try to get away with violating theBut you can't claim it as a term-of-art if you can't show a definition in the art. The key is your claim that it only needs to get ONE correct answer of each type.
basic notion of the term-of-the-art of a {termination
analyzer} indicates profound ignorance or dishonesty.
And you need to use the "Relationships" defined as accepted in the field.Meaning of the words does not extend to applying truth perserving operations on the axioms.*Relations between finite strings*
>
>>>Of course, that blows up your ideas.>
Only to those that refuse to go through all of the steps and
insist on leaping to conclusions anchored only on the rote
memorization of conventional wisdom.
>
Nope, you have blown up your logic system by injecting false ideas into it by your ignoring context and mixing up definitons from different fields.
>
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.