Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 6/11/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:Which Mendelson would encode as: ⊢𝒞On 6/11/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Unless it is just true as its nature.On 6/11/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:>On 6/11/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2024-06-10 14:43:34 +0000, olcott said:>
>
Those laws do not constrain formal systems. Each formal system specifies
its own laws, which include all or some or none of those. Besides, a the
word "proposition" need not be and often is not used in the specification
of a formal system.
>
*This is the way that truth actually works*
*People are free to disagree and simply be wrong*
Nope, YOU are simply wrong, because you don't understand how big logic actualy is, because, it seems, your mind is to small.
>
Every expression of language X that is
{true on the basis of its meaning}
algorithmically requires a possibly infinite sequence of
finite string transformation rules from its meaning to X.
Every expression of language that is {true on the basis of its meaning}>And not all things are finite strings.>>>
When we ask the question: What is a truthmaker? The generic answer is
whatever makes an expression of language true <is> its truthmaker.
>
But logic systems don't necessaily deal with "expressions of language" in the sense you seem to be thinking of it.
>
Finite strings are the most generic form of "expressions of language"
Basic facts are stipulated to be true.>but what makes the definition "true"? What is its truth-maker?>This entails that if there is nothing in the universe that makes>
expression X true then X lacks a truthmaker and is untrue.
Unless it just is true because it is a truthmaker by definition.
>
That is more than nothing in the universe.
>
Not everything has a truth-maker, because it might be a truth-maker itself.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.