Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure

On 7/7/24 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
Is "Not-a-logic-sentence" a truth value that True, of ~false can return or not?
>

 *I will try to be perfectly clear*
Not-a-logic-sentence(L,x) ≡ (~True(L,x) ∧ ~True(L,~x))
 

In other words, you have no idea of how to express you concept in the terms of how a logic would be built with it, as you just don't undertand how logic works.
That isn't a problem unless you want to actually try to define a logic system, which it seems you are trying to do, in which case it is a BIG problem.
Note, one basic feature of logic, is someone using it doesn't need to look at terms they are not interested in and not using,
Thus, when I define that x is defined as ~True(L, x) and asking what value True(L, x) is, and why, since you say it is false, that we can't say that since x is defined as ~True(L, x) and thus would be evaluated to be ~false, which is true, and thus you are saying that True(L, true) is false which is a contradiction to its defintion.
YOu can't say but over here ,,, as that doesn't matter.
Something is wrong with your definition of True(L, x) or you system just can't handle statements with references like that, or it just doesn't work.
If you can't handle that sort of reference, then you can't handle mathematics, as Godel showed we can make such references with mathematics.
IF you can't even DEFINE how your system works, how do you expect to build anything with it?